Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Click it or ticket
townhall ^ | 5/24/06 | Walter WIlliams

Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 661-670 next last
To: chrispycsuf

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."


181 posted on 05/31/2006 10:59:30 AM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga; billbears

Reckon from whence did the CIOTI public safety campaign idea come?


182 posted on 05/31/2006 11:00:02 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, eats lots of cheesburgers 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.

Correct, socialism describes a system where government owns the means of production and distribution. It has everything to do with NANNYSTATISM however.

183 posted on 05/31/2006 11:01:35 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
Only one thing wrong with this statement - we aren't talking about Socialism, we are talking about insurance (shared risk).

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.

184 posted on 05/31/2006 11:01:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf

>>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. ;)


185 posted on 05/31/2006 11:02:53 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

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.


186 posted on 05/31/2006 11:02:56 AM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I agree. I'm just pointing out that singling out seatbelt usage is inconsistent.

True, but certainly the least of the problems. The problem is a fundamental one. Government overstepping it's proper role in a free society.

187 posted on 05/31/2006 11:03:31 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: FNG

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.


188 posted on 05/31/2006 11:03:34 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

good lord the nanny staters are hyperactive on this thread today


189 posted on 05/31/2006 11:04:23 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Secondary - They're only getting caught because they weren't wearing seat belts - I was referring to nothing being done about their being here illegally.

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.

190 posted on 05/31/2006 11:05:42 AM PDT by Gabz (Proud to be a WalMartian --- beep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf

Most wrecks are caused by incompetent drivers; why would you want to give them a second chance?


191 posted on 05/31/2006 11:06:14 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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.


192 posted on 05/31/2006 11:06:17 AM PDT by half-cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

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.


193 posted on 05/31/2006 11:06:17 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
The problem is a fundamental one. Government overstepping it's proper role in a free society.

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.

194 posted on 05/31/2006 11:06:18 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan

You're not paying a penny less, you have only been convinced that the ins co won't charge you a dollar more.


195 posted on 05/31/2006 11:07:33 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
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.

Pop quiz; which of those things is fundamentally different than all the others?

196 posted on 05/31/2006 11:07:36 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Bring back the livery system.


197 posted on 05/31/2006 11:08:26 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
>>When you have passengers in the car you are directly responsible for others well being.

They assume the risk, they can choose whether to wear a seatbelt, and I can (and do) insist that they wear a seatbelt. Do you have a point?

>>your comment "depends on the laws" Is hilarious. I guess that means only laws that you yourself agree with or what??

No, it means laws that are constitutional, and affect PUBLIC (not private) safety.

>>You remaining in control of that car insures you are safe to be on the road as it petains to anyone else that is on the roads.

You are really stretching here if you think that my wearing a seatbelt keeps me from flopping about the car, otherwise unable to steer. The absurdity of your implication points out the poverty of your position.

>>It IS the law so is it just a police state if you disagree with the law? Sure seems so.

I guess if one couldn't tell the difference between a principle of liberty and a mere opinion, it would seem so.
198 posted on 05/31/2006 11:08:41 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf
The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it.

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.

199 posted on 05/31/2006 11:10:11 AM PDT by Gabz (Proud to be a WalMartian --- beep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

Stupid statement; seatbelts don't prevent wrecks.


200 posted on 05/31/2006 11:10:12 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 661-670 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson