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.
Many times people that break the laws are uncomfortable around police. I can understand why too.
We had 'em in the late '70's - early '80's. People threw a fit and they went away.
"Until such time as you can see the law changed you just have to follow it, or pay the consequences for not doing so. Personal responsibility can be a b!t@% sometimes. "
I absolutely agree with that statemet. Like I said, it is a game. Sometimes you land on Boardwalk and there is a hotel on it. Hopefully it is late in the game and you have the funds. ;)
Regarding the lap belt and buzzer. In my old car I just disconnected the buzzer.
Yous are still advocating a law to regulate personal and private behavior. The fact that it is imposed on the manufacturer does not make it one tiny bit less intrusive.
Well, unlike our Mexican friends, I have a fixed address and real identity. I'm the sort of person the system is set up to keep tabs on.
How you got all that about me wanting socialism is beyond me.
At this point, we do not live in a society where anyone has to take 100% ...or even anything close to that....responsibility for themselves. so if you decide to take a ride without a seatbelt and get injured and run out of your own insurance....we end up paying. That is the reality. Now, if you would like to make a law that says we let someone 'make it on their own" without any govt insurance or benefits...then I say fine, cancel mandatory seat belt laws.But you can't have it both ways.
I would rather people TAKE responsibility for themselves.But we don't have that now. Reality is not "you're for national health ins 100%".
If you want to take it all to the extremes you spouted...well, that is just not how the real world is.
That is not the case here. But to your point....
The law you voted for? Care to explain that one to me? Was it referendum vote and then a committee changed it after the people voted? Do you mean the law lawmakers voted on after they campaigned on a something other than they passed?
My wife and I already bought ours. If we go in a car crash, or thirty years later on a flight to the moon, it still costs the same.
well, assuming they bother to collect the bodies in the latter case. :)
If carmakers are required to have occupants belted in so that the vehicle will operate, much like a bobcat is how do you find that against you personally?
When you buy a riding lawn mower there is a safety feature that shuts off the PTO when you lift off the seat, is that a violation of my rights wanting to have the PTO running when I am off the mower?
Seems my opinion is shared by many that engineer various kinds of equipment already.
Sorry, when you mention the Chevy fuel tanks, I can only think of the slanderous news broadcast that had to use fireworks to get the tank to ignite in a demo.
That is correct my young friend!
It was a state wide referendum vote put to the general public. I've stated it a few times in this thread. Glad to see you finally caught it.
It was changed in committee.
Each State that enacted this law followed the same pattern.
They campaigned for the law as a NON-STOPPABLE offense. People voted thinking this was true.
A few years into the laws existance each state modified the referendum by committee.
No it would not!
So many people now drive with the bare minimum of insurance and so you would have to make a law that says you have to have "mandatory" ins.
Repeat it enough times to make it the truth right elk?
You are not in a position to decide what markers are used for establishing DUI. Your elected officials are. The very same ones that decide on laws about seat belts. Right?
Claiming you do not understand a simple direct question is a cop out elk so I see no need to continue.
'common sense'
The vast majority have never had the oppurtunity to work on an impaled, crushed, eviscerated, dismembered human in a medical setting. It's not fun.
If you choose not to be belted, so be it. But there should be a disclaimer clause on your insurance that they will cover NOTHING when you go thru the Veg-O-Matic.
I see alot of opposition in this discussion and the only alternative I see coming from that side is do away with the law entirely. That equals opposition without solution to me.
Care to pose something as a solution besides just doing away with the law? My guess is that you will answer No to that question.
When the law intrudes on the manufacturer (you must be a hug believer in government micro-regulating free enterprise) it is intruding on me and my right to purchase what I want.
What kind of cars elk? What brand? What model? I have been around cars all my life and have never ever seen these that you claim exist. Teach me something by showing me these cars you claim existed beacuse I have never heard of them. I sure would like to see some examples though.
So then the only thing you have to offer this discussion is to remove law then? Where do you stop when that is your chosen action?
Maybe you could try rephrasing in English?
On second thought, that would require a logical, reasoned answer from me, which you will then denounce as anarchistic.
You're right, there is no point continuing.
I understand that point and it is a fair one. I knew someone would bring that up so I offered the mercury as an addition because they really were dangerous.
:)
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.