Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
you sound like such a libertarian..."its capitalism, stupid"
When I started driving, a significant number of vehicles on the highway did not have seat belts. The dashboards were made of steel, no padding, no airbags, no crumple zones, bias ply tires, no antilock brakes, no traction control computers, some didn't even have collapsing steering columns.
If you did not get into a wreck, you did just fine.
All those gee-gaws are really nice, but they are no substitute for paying attention, and not driving like a bloody idiot.
"i think this is a great campaign...it keeps my car insurance down because my premiums go up every time a stupid person decides to drive down the road with out a seatbelt and hit another car and die. this has been around for about a year now in california and it has worked well. i have yet to get a ticket because im not stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt...its equivalent to bungee jumping without a cord...common sense people."
Most Communist Socialists do think it's a good idea.
Speaking of common sense, there's a book I recommend you read. It's called "Uncommon Sense" Probably written by a person you would loath.
His name was Thomas Paine.
It's always about the money. Here in Nashville, our mayor openly admitted that he wants a 33% increase in revenues from traffic violations. And he's got the police chief, who's a political hack and a sap anyway, sending his cops out there to collect. I wonder if they even bother writing tickets to the illegals they stop? I mean, if they don't pay the fine, they're not going to bother to arrest them anyway since it's too much trouble and won't bring in any money. I don't know that "traffic anarchy" is the result of this kind of thing, but trying to pretend that I have "respect for the law" gets tougher by the minute.
So...where do YOU draw the line? When they tell you what kind of car you HAVE to drive? That you can only drive from point A to point B? That only a certain class of people can drive?
What is is, mr lemming?
Privilege my a$$! You're a sheeple and you're full of it.
These seatbelt nazis are the types of people that think big government is always good for us.
Nope the Second Amendment is pretty clear on guns, not so for cars, or horse-drawn carriages, if you want to go back that far.
TWICE! Two times, the voters in Mass. shot down seatbelt laws, byt the legislature pushed them through anyway.
Yep just doing their duty - enforcing the law. In (maryland I think) I heard that they've banned charcoal grills for the same reason, but not propane grills (yet). Don't you feel all safe now knowing that the police are vigilantly protecting you from propane grills?
"The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it."
They are a nanny state and I DON'T applaud them for it. No matter. You are obviously a woman. Women value "security" over individual freedom while men tend to reverse the priorities.
Preserving life at all costs is not the ultimate goal, otherwise men would not have fought and died for the liberties you enjoy, but are being etched away in the name of "safety". By all means, tell people belts are safer. Show them statistics. Plead with them to put their cars in carseats. Just don't make it the law!
"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's a good pro-drug-use argument.
That statement is more appropriate to an absolute monarchy or a Communist dictatorship than to our form of government, at least in theory. Under monarchism or Communism, the sovereign or the state owns everything and anything you do is by the permission of that authority. It is impractical for a road system to be owned by anyone other than a state agency, although some libertarians believe that roads could be privatized.
If the state must own the roads in a free society, what regulations are posted on the roads should be the minimum necessary to maintain order. Too often government, motivated by nanny state ideology or unduly influenced by insurance company and other lobbyists, have used their power over the roads to impose oppressive controls. The notorious 55 MPH speed limit of the 1970s and 1980s (which Hillary Clinton has proposed to revive) was the most egregious of these controls.
A sound adage in these matters comes from an old Hank Williams, Sr., song, "If you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine."
That tired old line is pure BS. If my taxes construct the roads, I sure as hell have a right to use them to go place to place.
Wow, looking with amazement at some of these responses... Who knew that for so many on FR nanny statism was celebrated and Liberty was such a dirty word... May there be a zero-tolerance 55 mph speed limit with gps tracking, active government monitoring, and $1000 fines in your future...
Ah yes, the originals, who redated the seat-belt kind.
so is it alright to smoke medical marijuana, crack cocaine, crystal meth...it doesnt harm others if i do it in my home....the socialist government is keeping me down (sarcasm)...im being brought down by "the man"
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.