Click it or ticket

townhall ^ | 5/24/06 | Walter WIlliams

[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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

---

If I may jump in...

*I* advocate eliminating all the nanny-state regulations that prevent me from pooling risk with like-minded people. You don't need to ban insurance, you just need to let insurance companies price based on whether unbelted injuries are covered. That would have people bucking up like crazy, without the police state tactics.

[RobRoy]

I think I would go with the insurance company that says it doesn't cover injuries incurred while not wearing a seatbelt.

I bet their rates would be pretty good. :)

And on a side note - what if the state limited liability if other people injured in an accident you caused were not wearing their seatbelts?

Sometimes the best motivators are financial. Heck, it works with taxes. Look at all the people that simply MUST own their own home - no matter the price - just to get the tax deduction.

[Old Professer]

It is almost universally impossible to waive one's basic rights under law while it only requires acquiescence to abrogate them.

[Atlas Sneezed]

either that or make individual payments to health care costs tax deductable as well.

---

Even if they were, people with bad health habits are getting a greater tax subsidy (on their higher premiums) than are people with good habits.

Almost like subsidizing alcohol or tobacco for all. The irresponsible will get a greater subsidy.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Exactly.!

The "right ' to do whatever you want went out with the Wild West...when you were really on your own.

I am tired of paying not only high insurance rates but then also picking up the tab for someone who is now totally handicapped for the rest of his life and my taxes pay through medicaid and soc security disability.

I have NEVER seen any of the "govt is ruling my life" crowd suggest they would volunteer to pay such a multi million dollar ins policy.

Get real all you "freedom lovers". If you want to ride your bike without a helmet, drive without wearing a seatbelt...then cough up for a multi-multi- million dollar insurance policy cause that's what it will take to cover you for the rest of your life for that "freedom ride".

[Protagoras]

Just a personal little anecdote here: About a month ago I was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and fined $40. I hated it then, and I still hate it now. It's obvious the local governments are doing this to fill the coffers. Anyone who buys the "Officers write tickets to save lives" line has probably already bought 5 Brooklyn Bridges over their lifetime.

Here's another.

I was pulled over for speeding. I was certainly speeding, and was caught in a "speed trap" area near my home which I should have known better to avoid.

After I admitted I was speeding, the cop said, "I will give you a ticket for "no seat belt", even though we both agreed I was wearing mine. He explained that if it was speeding, the town would have to share the booty with the state but not on a seat belt violation. Further, he said he was doing me a favor by not having a speeding violation on my record. He was correct on all points.

But he gave away the town policy when he explained it.

It ain't about traffic, it's about dough.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's not the lack of ability to pay, it's that citing them would force the issue of lack of drivers licenses, lack of insurance, immigration status, etc. They choose to ignore the traffic violations so they don't open the immigration can of worms.

-PJ

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>I would like to ask if a child should be buckled in.

No.

>>Violation of their rights to force them to be buckled in?

No.

>>Government overstepping?

No.

We let adults do things that endanger their own health, but we don't let those responsible endanger the health of children.

[Gabz]

good lord the nanny staters are hyperactive on this thread today

You've got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nanny State PING

Let me know if you want on or off this list.........

[from occupied ga]

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.

Nothing wrong with your math. With seatbelts (922-421)/922 = 54% fatalities WITH seatbelts and 421/922 = 46% fatalities without seatbelts. If wearing seatbelts TRIPLED your chances of surviving, then you'd expect 75% of the fatalities not to be wearing seatbelts, not 46%

Governments lie - all the time about everything

[BlueStateDepression]

Seat belts: apply to everyone
Red lights: apply to everyone
Speed limits: apply to everyone
Lines: apply to everyone
Turn lanes: everyone
signals:everyone
enforcement:everyone.

Yup all the same.

[Old Professer]

That proposal falls somewhere between a lottery and a protection racket.

[FourtySeven]

That's interesting.

[NavyCanDo]

The law is working here in Washington. The Washington State Patrol says the number of people wearing seat belts has gone way up. There will always be some who refuse because "it's their right", or "it's just a short trip", but you cant legislate away stupidity.

[BlueStateDepression]

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.

your dismissal of that very fact shows the lengths you will strain to avoid reality. Maybe every road where you live in the concrete jungle is perfectly smooth and maybe it doesn't snow there. Maybe you need to expand your perception a bit.

Many people have varying opinions about the principle of liberty.

[Gabz]

It ain't about traffic, it's about dough.

Ain't it always????????

[JoeSixPack1]

So you're 100% FOR national health insurance (with a premium and a co-pay) and are 100% against personal responsibility if it increase your health care costs? And to insure your low premiums you'll back any and every draconian law ever dreamed of?

Do you and Hitlery bake cookies together?

[BlueStateDepression]

OK then so it is OK to require a 17 year old to wear a belt but not an 18 year old or older? Or is it 20 year olds we restrain and not 21 year olds?

Care to comment?

you not restrained while your kids are in the car? Protecting the children right?

I hope you have fun trying to justify your position being that is directly contradicts itself when age is injected.

Then I suppose you will have to admit that you define liberty by age. Good luck with that one HA HA HA HA.

[Gabz]

I had only read the article about 15 minutes before I saw this thread.........and since this thread is from the Virginia Department of Transportation, I thought the info from Virginia DMV was VERY apropos!!!

[Old Professer]

We already have drug legalization, it is ubiquitous when practiced by the right people.

There is no more drug use anywhere than in the U.S.A.; it is only the market that is controlled and the authorized pushers who are protected.

Our "health care system" is fraught with promises, plagued with frauds and has led us into a state of general dependence just so we can enjoy our misery a few years longer.