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.
name calling post after psot after post isn't exactly part of the program
I disagree.
If you don't know the difference between a seat belt law and a speed limit then this conversation is pointless.
Ping for later. I hate this bad-law nonsense.
The depression comes from living around a bunch of leftist pansies that do nothing but complain about how bad a law is rather than follow the rule of law in the way it was laid out for us by our founders.
Blame the law and not the action right?
Rules of road state clearly (at least here they do) that you must wear your belt to legally operate a motor vehicle. You agree to the rules of the road when you sign your license. If you disagree so much then by all means excercise your right to make that choice and refuse to sign. OR pay the fine when caught.
Disagreement with a law is no reason to whine about the fines you get when you are caught breaking them.
I would much rather it not be a law but it is and I respect the Rule of Law and how it was put in place.
Most here on this thread cannot say the same thing.
I have offered my resolution to this issue. That being make cars require seatbelts to operate. Funny how noone wanted to talk about that SOLUTION because to many are too busy caling names and screaming about their "rights". all the while ignoring the agreement they made when they signed their license test. Funny how noone wants to talk about that either.
I wear respect for the rule of law. I wear respect for the enforcment of the law. I wear respect for changing the law if you so desire to lobby for it.
What is that met with on this conservative website?
Namecalling, condiscending diatribes(long and short),orders on how and what I should do and how I should think, not to mention directions in my actions that are not supported by the rule of law.
Ask yourself how conservative you are when you do not even want to conserve the rule of law as it is,and how it is formed. Our congress is empowered to form law. No seat belt law has been ruled unconstitutional nor will it ever be. The reason being is that choice is available, that is another point that I have made that goes undisputed.
Enjoy, I will leave you guys to your anti government, anti rule of law rants that voice opposition without alternative solution other than do away with this law and that law regardless of how many times you are shown how that will ripple thru to other laws.
I once thought this was a forum site going upwards but over the last couple weeks and even months I have noticed it going the other direction.
When you rail againt the rule of law you rail against the very basic notion of conservatism, for when there is no law there is nothing left to conserve.
Choices have consequences and that is as conservative as it gets. Seems more and more that folks will scream RHINO at our representatives when they need to take a good look in the mirror and reflect upon themselves when it comes to their views on choices and consequences especially in the area of personal responsibility.
If your voters in Florida were tricked then a recall is in order. I take it that you describe a referendum vote then?
That does not dispute in anyway that you agree to the rules of the road when you sign for your license.
Are you being stopped for just a seat belt now? If not then what is your point? Is it to deflect the reality that you agree when you sign for your license? Sure seems so to me.
How is it ignorant when it says you agree to the rules of the road as stated in the book?
You are being funny now.
As far as specific principles, I'd have to go back in the archives of my posts to find some of the threads I've been involved in, but there are times when I've just sat there at my computer screen shaking my head when a thread comes along about what seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate law enforcement action ... and again, law enforcement inherently involves, at times, compelling people to do that which they do not want to do, or preventing them from doing that which they want to do ... but everyone starts shrieking about jackbooted Nazi thugs infringing on people's personal freedom.
Do I believe that in some cases the state, society, the government, or whatever you want to call it or however you want to define it, should protect people from themselves? I guess you can say that I do, because I would never, ever, ever, not in this or any known solar system, favor the legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc., that a lot of extreme libertarian elements favor. It is simply not in my DNA to do that. My point is that I think I can still be a good political conservative while holding those beliefs. If I'm out of step with conservatism 2006, c'est la vie, I would hope we still have enough of a big tent to brook some disagreements and still be on the barricades together when it's gonad-cutting time, as in this November.
Sometimes a bucket is just full.
That is not always true - there have been cases of people injured by a body being rocketed through a windshield becasue they were not belted in. Just because the article ignores certain facts does not make them vanish.
He couldn't think, he was drunk.
again you say unlikely. Maybe where you are hitting a deer is unlikely but that is not the case here.
I am not nor have I ever been a government employee.
Fine Bubba, you win seat belts have no value, they are a hoax, they are nothing more than a tool put in cars to amplify the governments pocket book.
FFS bubba how about a legit debate point from you describing to me why awearing a seatbelt is a bad thing to do. Show me where wrong has occured becasue they were worn.
Indeed define your own position better than 5 to 17.
Seat belts do help and that is a fact you cannot ignore and remain honest. Debating the enforcment of them is fair but all i see form you is opposition without solution. I see you present a differing position on ages between 5 to 17 but that is as in depth as you go. That to me makes it appear that you are afraid to say that you personally think it is a bogus law and that is a good enough reason for you to ignore it.
One violates others rights, one doesn't.
Explain that statement. How does me driving fast violate other's rights? Because I may injure them in an accident? Well, I can still injure them in an accident by not wearing a seat belt and becoming a human projectile. It has happened.
You're wrong - when you come flying through your windshield at 70 mph and crash into MY windshield you have just compromised MY safety through YOUR stupidity.
Law requires....interesting you point that out, Care to explain the ENFORCEMENT of that law to me..particularly how that part of it works?
In your post you say that if I drive on public roads I should be forced to pay premiums for insurance, and then you say I should be able to assume my own risk.Which is it?
Not always. A broken arm is far cheaper than a funeral.
Not always. A broken arm is far cheaper than a funeral.
Instead of tossing proclamations around of what you think the rules were when various people first got their drivers license, you might consider the concept of Liberty as spelled out in our governing documents.
Search out the references to Government By the People, For the People. Oh,, and find those pesky little passages about rescinding laws. Or instituting laws. Who enforces laws. And finally, the one about who votes laws into and out of existence.
Discussion is irrelavent if our laws were unimpeachable.
They are not.
But your argument is based on them being so.
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.