Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
Virginia's secretary of transportation sent out a letter announcing the state's annual "Click It or Ticket" campaign May 22 through June 4. I responded to the secretary of transportation with my own letter that in part reads:
"Mr. Secretary: This is an example of the disgusting abuse of state power. Each of us owns himself, and it follows that we should have the liberty to take risks with our own lives but not that of others. That means it's a legitimate use of state power to mandate that cars have working brakes because if my car has poorly functioning brakes, I risk the lives of others and I have no right to do so. If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights. As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."
My letter went on to tell the secretary that I personally wear a seatbelt each time I drive; it's a good idea. However, because something is a good idea doesn't necessarily make a case for state compulsion. The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" easily provide the template and soften us up for other forms of government control over our lives.
For example, my weekly exercise routine consists of three days' weight training and three days' aerobic training. I think it's a good idea. Like seatbelt use, regular exercise extends lives and reduces health care costs. Here's my question to government officials and others who sanction the "Click It or Ticket" campaign: Should the government mandate daily exercise for the same reasons they cite to support mandatory seatbelt use, namely, that to do so would save lives and save billions of health care dollars?
If we accept the notion that government ought to protect us from ourselves, we're on a steep slippery slope. Obesity is a major contributor to hypertension, coronary disease and diabetes, and leads not only to many premature deaths but billions of dollars in health care costs. Should government enforce, depending on a person's height, sex and age, a daily 1,400 to 2,000-calorie intake limit? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. High salt consumption can lead to high blood pressure, which can then lead to stroke, heart attack, osteoporosis and asthma. Should government outlaw adding salt to meals? While you might think that these government mandates would never happen, be advised that there are busybody groups currently pushing for government mandates on how much and what we can eat.
Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots. Last year, Maryland state troopers were equipped with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq, to catch night riders not wearing seatbelts. Maryland state troopers boasted that they bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his treatise "On Liberty," said it best: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise."
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
-(you)
"Feh, who needs laws in the first place, ANARCHY NOW!"
So...you're equating your inability to buckle your seatbelt on your own to me wanting anarchy? Geesh, you need a diaper.
Ok then its been around for about a year in cali great. Are you paying less for auto insurance nowthen you were 1 year ago?
This is why I said that if it truly needs to be the law then by all means simply require cars to have occupants in seat belts in order they may operate.
That would remove the issues presented in opposition. Mostly it removes selective enforcment for revenues.
Only one thing wrong with this statement - we aren't talking about Socialism, we are talking about insurance (shared risk). If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, statistics say that their medical costs are going to be much higher. This, of course is going to cause my insurance premium to be higher. I am being forced to pay for someone's idiocy. It has nothing to do with Socialism.
Now, if you are advocating doing away with insurance and everybody has to look out for themself, you are opening a whole new can of worms.
"Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?"
Ah, the old fascist solution to socialist problems. I fear for our "Republic" when conservatives support these solutions.....
I agree. I'm just pointing out that singling out seatbelt usage is inconsistent.
Having a brother-in-law who is a police officer, I can tell you that this silly law is all about money period. Safety is an excuse - they could care a less whether you wear the stupid thing or not. They write the tickets for money and money only!!! He swears that if politicians have their way, we will all be wearing helmets next.
You see the "click it or ticket" all over the highways of Maryland. Nice to see abuse of governmental power.
either that or make individual payments to health care costs tax deductable as well.
That argument does not fly. Sorry. It can be used regarding seat belts, helmets, fast food,driving at all, etc.
You are completely missing the point. This is not about whether or not belts save lives. It is about the government forcing it and the hit individual freedom takes, and the collective impact that has on our culture and individuals perception of who they have and what control they have over their own destiny.
It has had a major impact on you, apparently.
True, but flip that argument around. Think how much money is saved at the tail end of life. The last few years of our lives typically cost 10s to hundreds of thousands. Consider how much money seat belt costs increase health care!
The fact is the gov't would like nothing more than for us to live to retirement age and die promptly before we start collecting. A quick death on the roadway should be a major boon. Sure they missed out on a few years tax payments but saved a boat load in health costs.
Oddly enough I drove through Maryland this past weekend and although I was driving more in other staes I saw far more speed traps - seatbelt traps etc in MD than any other state.
They've had this as a law in PA for a few years now I believe...and insurance premiums haven't budged.
Not wearing your seatbelt is the equivilant to riding a motorcycle without a helmet, the only difference in PA is that at the same time they made it law to have to wear you seatbelt they erased the law that you had to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.
Brilliant.
Suspicions confirmed.
"No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent."
Magna Carta, article 30
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."
Magna Carta, article 39
"In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm."
Magna Carta, article 42
I would like to ask if a child should be buckled in.
Violation of their rights to force them to be buckled in?
Government overstepping?
"The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it."
If the government is tasked with saving me from my own poor choices, then I am no longer an individual. Instead, I am owned by the state.
I have discovered an onimous trend in traffic that should have every driver in this land greatly concerned. I was ticketed in a hispanic neighborhood I had to drive through to work. I always had to weave around the locals obstructing traffic in the left lane, amongst other moving violations. They were never stopped unless they were tearing aroung at super high speeds directly endangering people. Running an errand yesterday at lunch, I saw three major traffic light/lane violations by (guess whom) that would have resulted in serious wrecks had another vehicle present. Since these tickets are all about revenue anway, cops only stop those of us who are obvoulsly citizens who will pay up, not illegals that will disappear. It seems like these folks are driving like they know that now, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.