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 never was buckled in as a child, because there were no seatbelts.
If I have to do one more thing, or refrain from doing one more thing "for the children", I'm going to start throttling the little toots.
>>Only an idiot would stop at a stop sign on a deserted highway.<<
Heh, heh. When visiting relatives in South Dakota, I tend to stop at the signs when there is any good cover around (for cops). My relatives just laugh. I have learned it just doesn't work that way. The stop signs are just there to determine who is at fault if there ever IS an accident.
How is a seat belt law different from a speeding law? They are both safety issues, they are both personal decisions and they both affect other peoples safety.
More big govm't nanny state BS.
From bagheera.com:
BLACK-FOOTED FERRET
Remaining Population: Unknown
Range: North America
I agree totally. By and large, the police in this country have turned into a huge pathetic joke. They do nothing but harass law abiding citizens in traffic to boost local tax revenues, while REAL criminals are running loose, and invading the country without any real resistance.
Are you an illegal alien? Are you a child molester? If so, then you have no worries. But if you are on your way to or from work and have a cracked tail light on your car, or forgot to put on your seat belt, LOOK OUT! They are coming for YOU! All in the name of "public safety" of course.
You retain the choice to wear it or not, if you chose not to then pay the fine as the rules stipulate.
YOU MADE THAT CHOICE when you agreed to the RULES OF THE ROAD when you got your driver license.
Care to dispute that point sir? I would love to see you try!
You're supposed to keep the greasy side down.
The stop signs are just there to determine who is at fault if there ever IS an accident.
Now I understand how ex-4 term Gov Janklow of South Dakota got only a lousy 100 days w/roomservice for blowing a stop sign at 90+ and killing a motorcyclist/father of 2, named Randy Scott 2 years ago.
The jury must have laughed too.
You couldn't be more wrong. Get your hat back out.
Real Americans oppose nannystate laws and other bad laws. That is what people are doing on this thread.
I am sorry you are anti rule of law.
Nice try, but a lie.
Posters like you drive people away from sites like this.
If you promise to leave I'll promise to keep posting those cute little pictures.
![](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZjF-66TzqUcWbM:www.sheepusa.org/images/h_image.jpg")
Please refrain from posting to me any further.
It's a open forum. Don't read or answer. It's one of your choices.
implausible
adj 1: having a quality that provokes disbelief; "gave the teacher an implausible excuse" [ant: plausible] 2: highly imaginative but unlikely; "a farfetched excuse"; "an implausible explanation" [syn: farfetched]
Maybe you should rewo0rd that because the Deer example I afforded you is real and losing control of a car after initial collision is not far fetched in the least.
While you may simply disregard it, that in and of itself does make it what you claimed it to be.
Seat belts do help in many situations, that is a fact you should accept. But you are free to live in denial if you chose to about that point.
With most legislative bodies in recess, their houses of worship are locked and empty.
It was hardly deserted; the congressman was drunk; had the victim been in a train, the coffins would be rearranged.
You should do more with that depression than wear it as a badge.
I voted for Rossi. He won, yet our governor is Grequare (sp?). We have no rule of law in the state of Washington. I make all driving choices – ALL OF THEM – as I see fit, not based on what some unelected socialist official deems “legal”. The very word draws a chuckle from me.
It is a game – like Monopoly – and all about arbitrary rules that are not in place for the reasons advertised. You cannot always break them, but the cops are not everywhere.
I have a friend that uses the HOV lane with impunity. The tickets he gets are merely the toll to him.
There is a book titled, “What to do when it is too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bast***s”.
I have actually found one of those things to do.
I can dispute that point by referring to the seat belt law campaign here in Florida that tricked voters into giving the law a chance because they were SPECIFICALLY told they would NEVER be stopped for not wearing a seat belt.
Care to dispute that?
It should be a CHOICE to pay those premiums right? That is the point you have been making this whole thread right?
Are you seeking to force me to pay fines, fees, or anything else you wish to call that forced money transfer?
Assuming risk should be choice right? Isn't that what you have been saying?
It doesn't fit bubba.
Good luck. Maybe you could make one?
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.