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 think a law is just so long as it is shown to be valid and its enforcement is equal. I offer that traffic law in general is proper on the first point but lacking ont he second.
That's why I prefer to stay home and get blind.
That's already been done, and there was a MASSIVE revolt.
He was also drunk. Going against signals is serious and should not be taken lightly.
Remember, if you are crossing an intersection on a green light and someone hits you, you are blissfully innocent. If you do it on a red, you hold your (and maybe other peoples) future in your hands. A prudent person tends to be more careful under such circumstances, unless he is drunk or on a car phone.
When I am drunk or on a car phone I don't do such things! I drive "safe". ;)
Elk have you ever said to me that it is wrong to disallow you from drinking a beer while on your way home from a hard days work?
Have you ever told me that BAC is wrong to use a marker to who should be charged and convicted witha DUI?
My point is that some rail against drinking and driving laws just as some rail against seat belts, and this law and that law la la la la la la
Do you support that being illegal in 50 states Elk? Do you support how that law came about elk? Do you abide by it?
Do you support .08 elk? Do you support how it came about?
Drinking in excess of .08 is not legal elk, do you support that and how it came to be?
We both know the answers to these questrions huh?
Violations of rights right elk? Ever said that to me? government overstepping right elk? Ever say that to me?
Actually it's anywhere from $2000.00 to $30000.00+.
But on a personal note, that's a lot of aspirins, tylenol, stitches, and/or doctor visits. :-)
It's more a case of you missing virtually everyone else's point. And you totally failed to respond to mine:
" Here's something to try on for size. It is a known fact that wearing flame retardant suits (like fire fighters wear) would save a lot of lives in auto accidents. They're big, bulky, hot and not at all comfortable to wear. By your logic, we should pass a law requiring all occupants of a motor vehicle to wear them while riding in the vehicle because wearing them would save lives. Such an intrusive law passes your tests, but not mine. That is where we differ. We separated from England over such as this but that spirit seems to be fading.
What I get is that you do not like the law and think that is a means not to follow it.
You wanna see it changed then by all means lobby to see it changed. You have avenues open to you to do so. Until such time follow the law. See how that works? Maybe it is you that just doesn't get it.
Remember the 55 mph speed limit? Remember the time BEFORE the speed limit?
Before the limit there would be occasional speeder on the freeway. After the limit was imposed (did you know it was originally 50?!) virtually EVERYONE was a speeder. It was similar to prohibition.
When everyone is a lawbreaker, there is friction between the police and the peasants. Sadly, many in my generation does not feel very comfortable around traffic cops. Wonder why.
And now we have the seat belt law...
Great link, thanks.
AHHH but fire in a vehicle was adressed another way. At the manufacturers level. Remember the mercury Bobcat ( bombcat) or the 73 to 87 chevy truck fuel tanks?
See why I said in the very begining of this thread that the best way forward was to simply have seat belts required for safe operation of a vehicle?
Thanks for pointing that out, it gave me an opportunity to show a spot that I was ahead of the game! :)
Tell me about it!
Where is there a car that requires occupants to be seat belted in order that the vehicle may operate?
That is what I have been saying during this thread and that context is missing from the snip you took.
The law I voted for said I would not be stopped for not wearing it.
What's your problem with understanding that?
The law was re-writen through committee against the wishes of the public?
What's your problem with understanding that?
>>Not always. A broken arm is far cheaper than a funeral.<<
True, but yer gettin' a funeral one way or another, so it's a wash.
LOL!
If that's what you think, I'm sure your opinion is shared with at least, yourself.
I addressed that by showing you the alternative that has indeed already been employed successfully. Mercury bobcat and Chevy pickups. RATHER than a law intruding into our daily lives a law governing production of vehicles sold functioned for the end purpose without affecting what you are wearing soas not to be burned.
It was dealt with another way. A similar way I advocate to deal with this issue. Maybe now you could address why my point is invalid????
No.
Have you ever told me that BAC is wrong to use a marker to who should be charged and convicted witha DUI?
Yes, and I stand by that.
My point is that some rail against drinking and driving laws just as some rail against seat belts, and this law and that law la la la la la la
Do you support that being illegal in 50 states Elk? Do you support how that law came about elk? Do you abide by it?
If there's a question in there, I don't understand it.
Do you support .08 elk?
I don't know what that means either.
Drinking in excess of .08 is not legal elk
Yes it is. You might want it to be, but it is.
We both know the answers to these questrions huh?
No, the questions are unintelligible, so we can't possibly know the answers.
Violations of rights right elk? Ever said that to me? government overstepping right elk? Ever say that to me?
Yes I did, but you didn't get it, so I and others find it necessary to repeat it - over, and over, and over.
Why do you think we are discussing this law?? Or did all that slip right past you??
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.