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.
ROTFLMAO. Good one. I wish this thread had a laugh track.
I didn't notice you making the "deer" defense of the law prior to this. LOL
BTW I have no father and never have so there is no way you can properly label me your son.
Virgin birth?
I call all boys son. Just a habit.
"I don't call you son because you're mine, I call you sun because you shine."
Then you call me a dunce.
I merely suggested a hat for your discernment skills at picking the one law that was different from the others.
You're a scream. You should do stand up.
Certaintly not the government - it's their mission to take our freedom. Dunno if you've heard of H. L. Mencken. One of his quotes on government officials stated "Putting a new job-holder to work decreases the wages of every wage-earner in the land. Giving a job-holder more power takes something away from the liberty of all of us."
Does being obtuse require any real work?
Rob my chocie was not made for me. I chose to drive and follow the rules set out to do so or I don't. You mistake the choice.
If you think i am a raw socialist you make the mistake of judging a book by its cover.
You are in no way free to drvie a car outside the rules set out to do so. If you think you are then your defenition of freedom is anarchy. how can it be anything else? You do not get to decide the rules of the road, your elected representatives do by the votes they cast. If you disagree with their voting patterns then by all means cast your vote another way next time around.
You have a choice to follow the rules of the road as they apply to vehicles or travel in another way. You may argue that your choice has been removed but that just simply isn't the case.
Ask the black footed ferret about the choice you made, they would be extinct if they had been able to chose as you would.
Here is a choice, if you do not wish to follow the rules then don't drive or maybe you could run for electedoffice on this issue???
I made the required hand gesture to the idiot who pulled out in front of me this morning - does that count?
you misunderstand or you just do not listen. You are free to make a choice. If you do not agree with a seat belt then by all means do not wear it. Pay the fee when caught becasue that is respect for the rule of law....OR you could excercise your choices and take a bus or a taxi or a bike....oe hey you could walk.
You may argue, as others do, that choice is being removed but that simply doesn;t hold water when other choices are so easy to post.
Yes.
Hand gestures are a choice! :-)
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
Here's another decent analysis of governmental intrusion into our lives:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=20437
Omnipresence?
And you are a compliant sheep.
Ummm, make that deer. LOL
Hope you still feel the same when they add remote shutdown, GPS tracking, cockpit cameras and mileage logging.
>>Stupid people need protected just as much as 5 year olds.
Nanny state marching orders.
>>Stupid people need protected just as much as 5 year olds.
Nanny state marching orders.
Have the number of crashes gone way down?
Large trucks use the engine for braking when stopping distance is the issue.
As for handsignals and such....a better way has evoloved. One that does not require distraction on the part of the driver, those being automatic lights. This came about partly because of increased traffic and the need to remove unneeded tasks to perform.
You may call it a removal of intent but then you are just being obtuse about it. Signaling with a hand gesture is the same intent as signaling with a blinker. Simply a different tool used to do so.
Your last paragraph hold some merit. Seat belts aplly to what you said just the same. That was my solution to much of the opposition now wasn't it? Engineer the use of seat belts for operation just as the brakes are.
One could even argue that a seat belt is about stoppng distance also. In relation to your seat and the windsheild that is.
Rob you might think you can see every car all the time...it is your right to think you can be perfect. Seems you had trouble with already three times eh?
Thanks for that link. Colo needs to be educated...
Am I not required to wear a seat belt in a bus or a taxi? Why?
A helmet on a bike? (But probably not a motorcycle)
If I fall a lot when I walk, should I not be required to use a cane, or wear airbag pants, or be ticketed?
I hope you're still around when the government mandates Nomex pajamas.
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.