Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
I think you miss the entire point. It may be common sense, it may benefit you, it may benefit others. But to enforce this law upon everyone "for the common good" is immoral and evil. Hey, if the government mandated healthy lifestyles, as Mr. Williams points out, for the "common good" of us all, is it a good idea? Hey, someone else, in a speech in California no less, said a year or so ago, that she may just have to raise everyone's taxes for the "common good."
Reckon from whence did the CIOTI public safety campaign idea come?
It has nothing to do with Socialism.
Correct, socialism describes a system where government owns the means of production and distribution. It has everything to do with NANNYSTATISM however.
Two things wrong with what you said - government (ie the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill for a lot of these because they don't have insurance) so this is socialism and there are different premiums paid by different people for the same coverage based o risk, so your risk pool is somewhat distorted, but those with riskier practices already pay higher premiums.
>>wow...talk about off topic...please oh please mister man...please use the spell checker...it the words of cartman..."i do what i want!"<<
Think of it as fatherly advice. You will be better off if you take it.
And just be thankful you are not being FORCED to. ;)
Another one who does not get the point. The point is, government should not be involved in any of this. If you do something stupid and cause harm to yourself, you and no one else, should pay. What Williams is saying is that government never should have been involved in the first place.
True, but certainly the least of the problems. The problem is a fundamental one. Government overstepping it's proper role in a free society.
Ahh, we no need no steeeekeeeen seat belts, we no need no steeenkeeen red lights or stop signs, we no need no steeekeeenspeed limits, we no need no steeeekeeeen lines on the roads, we no need no steeekeeeen turn lanes or turn signals, but mooooosly we no need no steeeeekeeeen enforcment.
Seat belts are a pain in the butt, so is using a turn signal, so is stopping at a red light when there isn't a car for miles around.
I offer that people would be far more accepting of these type laws,because they respect the rule of law, if they were put into play and enforced in a better manner.
good lord the nanny staters are hyperactive on this thread today
Actually it had to do with illegally registered vehicles, no licenses or illegal ones, and just plain tiredness of the carnage on the roads in this county caused by the illegals. At least one person I know who went through expected to get pulled over because he didn't have his seat belt on, but was just reminded to put it on and sent on his way.
But I do understand and accept your point. Interesting statistic I read in this morning's weekly paper:
According to The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, 922 persons were killed in 837 motor vehicle related crashes in 2004. Of those, 421 persons were unrestrained.
Yet the next paragraph states:
"It can't be over emphasized: Safety belts and child safety seats save lives," says Capt. J. Thomas Martin. "Wearing a safety belt triples your chance of surviving a crash.
My math, which was never my strong suit, I admit, tells me that 421 out of 922, more people died WEARING seatbelts than not wearing them.
Most wrecks are caused by incompetent drivers; why would you want to give them a second chance?
I asked the trooper why he couldn't just give me a warning for not wearing a seat belt. The gist of his answer, although he didn't say it in so many words,was that since I am a white woman it would mess up their stats if he didn't give me a ticket. They are always in trouble for racial profiling, for stopping and charging more minorities. Once I'm stopped he has to give me a ticket. It may be true, but I still think it's just to raise revenue.
Same thing happened to me regarding a front license plate. I had not had one on any of my cars since around 1982. I got a ticket for it a few months age (the second since 1982) and just decided, the heck with it. I really don't care if I have a front plate and now I'm completely legal when I drive. I can thumb my nose at cops with nary a worry.
Well, as long as I have a witness in the car with me. ;)
And no, that last line is not a joke. I have no respect whatsoever for the cops - as cops. I'm sure some of them are nice guys off work.
Well, that is a discussion that is long overdue, particularly right here on this site. I've been trying to discuss it here and there, to little avail.
It would seem that power has satisfied many who had previously claimed to stand on principle.
You're not paying a penny less, you have only been convinced that the ins co won't charge you a dollar more.
Pop quiz; which of those things is fundamentally different than all the others?
Bring back the livery system.
apparently not, according to an article in my local paper this morning.
According to The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, 922 persons were killed in 837 motor vehicle related crashes in 2004. Of those, 421 persons were unrestrained.
You do the math, more people died while wearing seat belts than while not.
Stupid statement; seatbelts don't prevent wrecks.
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.