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.
How about injuries? Oh wait, that would mean you applied proper context. Just like drunk driving it goes deeper than just deaths. So how about it?
Just so you know when I was in high school my wrestling partner was wearing a seatbelt in a crash, the only to be wearing one in fact, and he now sits in a wheelchair. All were injured in the crash.
Many crashes will cause fatality regardless of belts but they do help. This is another bit of context you leave out when posting this stat. In a nutshell there is more to it than just what you tout here.
I agree a seat belt would be best left to each person. They do save lives in some cirmstances and it is wrong to ignore that part of it. Today it is the law and the best opposition to it today is against how it is enforced. Make them enforce it across the board or not at all. Do this by making it a part of the car just like brakes.
Brakes do not always save lives in a crash but they do enough of the time it is prudent to have them. Same can be said about airbags. Same can be said about turn signals and brake lights. Wouldn't you agree?
Should I say, "well, it is my choice to have brake lights on my car, I should be able to disconnect them"
I understand that seat belts and lights are not the exact same thing but they are hardly opposites right? Do you at least understand why they are both there? Will you say people should not be ticketed when lights are disconnected or burned out? They should not be told they have to signal or be ticketed when they do not?
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?
Just like a punch in boxing, it is always the one you didn't see that hurts the most. I may cuxx and stew when I sit at a red light but I will continue to sit until it goes green and even then I will still procede with caution.
A nasty car wreck that damages your body will make you see things in a light that previously you may not have noticed.
If you know of a way to determine with virtually 100% certainty whether the injured was belted, go for it.
"Click it or ticket" is government abuse of power. It is just an excuse to collect revenue and search without a warrant. And my insurance certainly hasn't gone down in the years since we were hit with "zero tolerance" for seat belt criminals.
Indeed, but maybe you have only old cars that do not require you to press the brake pedal in order to put it in gear or that lock the doors once you do put it in gear.
Technology is vastly improved today but I would guess you know that already.
( I removed that wiring in both my 78 and my 79 Trans am) ;)
BUZZZ, incorrect son.
Seat belts: have no effect on other people's safety.
All the rest do.
Red lights: apply to everyone
Speed limits: apply to everyone
Lines: apply to everyone
Turn lanes: everyone
signals:everyone
enforcement:everyone.
Here's your hat!
I am free to avoid being forced to wear a seat belt. I can take a bus. I can take a taxi, I can ride a bike or I can walk.
Maybe it isn't me that needs to broaden the horizons eh?
Seems I see more freedom here than some that claim their liberty is being stomped on when indeed they have plenty of choices to select from.
Should I say, "well, it is my choice to have brake lights on my car, I should be able to disconnect them"
Under those circumstances a red light is a suggestion, not a command.
I am free to avoid being forced to wear a seat belt. I can take a bus. I can take a taxi, I can ride a bike or I can walk.
>>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?<<
That is a question from a raw socialist perspective. It’s a twist on the old question, “If you have nothing to hide, why are you against the police searching your house without a warrant?”.
The problem is that once you make a decision for someone that really only involves them and their personal safety, you have taken away their freedom to choose their own destiny. They have become your ward.
If you take away a persons freedom to fail, you ipso-facto take away their freedom to succeed. After all, if their “success” is because you made the decisions for them, it is not their success, it is yours. Which means you are the one that has the power, not them. They are merely well taken care of pets.
This country was founded on the concept of individual freedom. It brings with it risks. But life IS risk.
If I were a gazelle, I would rather live in the uncertainty of the Savannah than the “safety” of a zoo. It seems many here like the comfort of the zoo.
The trooper who stopped my gf was actually very nice, so frankly overzealous. We are about as white as you can be, but he only gave a warning, perhaps since he knew we could fight this one in court and win.
I must have been asleep that day in my Political Science course, where they said that Socialism meant forcing people to wear seatbelts, instead of that whole public ownership of the means of production thing.
I knew you'd get to the first person root of your emotion soon; there is no way to know whether a belt would have saved your brother but not crashing would have delayed it, at least.
To qualify that basic platform stance, I hold to be self evident, the fact that each person is indeed responsible for the choices they make and the actions those choices lead to.
Your profile page seems to be at odds with your authoritarian nannystatism.
The Dept of Transportations job/charter is not to save lives..
Its to maintain roads(and other things) and to hand out serious obscene graft to many contractors paying obscene Union wages and to inflate costs to eat up the obscene gasoline and other energy taxes which make literally EVERYTHING ELSE go up in price too.. From a budget always bloated as bad as many entitlements..
Thats what THEY DO.. Saving lives is not on their charter.. Being a parasite on lives of the citizens IS what they do..
The Seat Belt Law is as ridiculous as the Miranda Law, purely government overreaching by liberal socialist fascists.. They are quite INSANE you know..
My Lab could do that.
Baiting? Maybe you just do not like reality other than what you see thru your eyes so you project instead.
Ever been on a country road when you come to a four way intersection that a snow plow has just com across? My guess is no or you would not have said what you did.
Ever been hit broad side by a deer that jumped out of a ditch that had 4 feet of weeds? ( environmentalists disallowing mowing for a time in the spring)
Ever hit a nasty pot hole in rural america? Heck ever even driven there?
Your comment of me baiting is dismissed as the drivel it is becasue many things happen in a vehicle that can rock a person around that have absolutely zero to do with off roading.
(((Not to mention after an initial collision that does not bring both vehicles to a complete stop.))
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.