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 would like to ask if a child should be buckled in. Violation of their rights to force them to be buckled in?
Government overstepping?”
Absolutely! And I eluded to it in a previous post.
My children and their safety are MY responsibility, not the states. For every minor, there is a legally responsible adult. Sometimes that adult IS the state. But when the parents are alive and not in jail or otherwise incapacitated, their wellbeing is the responsibility of the parents.
Sometimes these parents to stupid things, but it is not my call. And preserving their right to make that call is actually a higher principle than preserving the future of their individual children. After all, their children will be parents too.
The car seat laws actually offend me more than the seat belt laws. It is the ultimate nanny state incursion into our private affairs. I cannot even be trusted to protect my own children for crying out loud. They need to just butt the heck out!
My three daughters survived to adulthood, believe it or not. :)
If you know of a way to determine with virtually 100% certainty whether the injured was belted, go for it.
Otherwise, good luck with that. "Sorry, sir. But, (our tests indicate) you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Therefore, your claim is rejected."
I wouldn't be surprised if modern cars are already equipped with enough sensors. Whether they can be fooled is another matter. (If they can, we lose again.)
Why is it that the government is always trying to get in the way of "natural selection."
If you are doing the right thing anyway and a law is passed that is driven at doing the right thing, how exactly is that affecting you negatively?
Seems more fatalities in Virginia occurred among those wearing seatbelts..........
Do you normally light up this early in the day?
"...so is stopping at a red light when there isn't a car for miles around."
Which is why I stopped doing it. I'm not a lemming...
Comrade! We have yet another successful example of the community education programs!
You must not be old enough to remember the dreaded, hidden seatbelt buzzer that malfunctioned half the time.
The state has claimed the air; bullets don't burrow efficiently, his point remains.
That proposal falls somewhere between a lottery and a protection racket.
Thanks for the bit of eremitic smugness.
Thank you for the ping!
Click it or Ticket?
Well, write it and bite it!!
Why would any sane man own a car on which insurance must be paid if he could not drive it?
No, he is innocent of the concept.
"If you are doing the right thing anyway and a law is passed that is driven at doing the right thing, how exactly is that affecting you negatively?"
Obviously you don't understand the concept of freedom and liberty if you have to ask that question.
"stupid" and "risky" are really not synonymous.
"its good to look at other government ideas and draw from that"
I'm constantly astonished by the number of liberty hating Americans that post here.
You are merely baiting.
The post cannot be taken seriously, short of SERIOUS offroading.
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.