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.
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.