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.
Until you change the laws of the Nanny State to let everyone fend for themselves....and leave the medical care and life care of an injured child soley to their parents....I do have a right to mandate you take care of the safety of your child in a reasonable way.
You "freedom " people seem to miss the point that you can't have it both ways. If you want to go back to the wild west where everyone was on his own..fine. But as it is now...MY TAXES will be paying for an injured child's care the rest of their lives!
>>Many times people that break the laws are uncomfortable around police. I can understand why too.<<
Likewise. And when you have lots and lots of intrusive laws, eventually, the majority of the population breaks the laws. Think about it: Cheating on taxes, building a deck without a permit, throwing recyclables in the regular trash (yes, it's illegal in many places) - the list goes on and on. I have only scratched the surface. Use some creativity. Come up with your own list.
But the real problem is that the laws are so numerous and intrusive that often the problem is the fear the people have that they will break the law and not even know it. You aughta monitor third avenue in downtown Seattle on a weekday during rush hour. For months the motorcycle cops pull over three and four vehicles at a time, several groups at once, because of the confusing laws for that street, and signs slipped into an environment of sensory overload to let people know that only busses are allowed every other block.
I sometimes would watch it for entertainment. I talked to a cop at one end just sitting on his motorcycle taking a break. As we talked for about five minutes, a couple dozon cars went by us, every single one worthy of a ticket. I asked him why he wasn't pulling them over. He was on a break.
I don't trust nor respec the laws of such a system. One by one (or in this case, three or four at a time) others are learning the same.
My state did not follow that pattern so you err in that supposition.
My state did nothing under the table as you describe. They said they were going to pass it as secondary and they did. Several years later they said they were going to make it primary and they did.
If your state did something other than that, take it up with them.
You're being sarcastic I hope. Our elected officials like Sheila Jackson Lee who thought that the Apollo Mission landed on Mars? Our elected officials who think taking money from the hard working and giving it to the indolent will reduce poverty? Our elected official who see gun control as the solution to crime? Our elected officials who pay women to have out of wedlock babies and somehow think that this will reduce the problem? Our elected officials who provide all sorts of benefits to illegal aliens, and then claim that they're again illegal immigration? These are the elected officials whom you think know what BAC constitutes impairment? Very Funny.
Purchase all you want to, just accept that many cars are not deemed street legal. You really have trouble with authority of any kind don't you.
In our state I was staunchly aginst it in the beginning. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see where it would end up. But to be frank, the whole principle was wrong to me even as a "secondary" offense as well.
Your argument that "life is full of risks" so let me be free is so out of touch with reality. HA.
In this country anyone that is seiously injured for life will be taken care of at least minimally with medical care and benefits by our government. Your idea of life is full of risks and I'll take mine went out about the turn of this century.
If you take a stupid risk...then I will pay with taxes for your choice.
No, you're so hot today that you have totally convinced me that we should pass laws against everything and then start culling out the really bad ones.
You seem to be of a mind that us humans need a stack of laws a mile deep to make it through our little government-managed lives.
*thus empowering attorneys...don't ask me why I already know you are not one.
>>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 firmly agree with that statement.
It will take multi-millions...not a million...and hey, you're mandating limits on freedom again.
Freedom Forced to Buckle, Part 1
Freedom Forced to Buckle, Part 2
A small sample:
"One of the starkest examples of our government's inexorable usurpation of personal liberties in the name of the "greater good" has been the near-universal adoption of mandatory seat belt laws in the 50 states and the District of Columbia over the last two decades. Only one U.S. state, New Hampshire, whose fitting motto is "Live Free or Die," continues to put the individual's freedom and accountability above overreaching state power and federal fiscal coercion (more on this in a minute).
And not surprisingly to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by the nannyish government into believing they're in mortal danger if they don't buckle up, the Granite State is perennially among the three or four safest states from a fatalities-per-vehicle and fatalities-per-mile standpoint -- despite having among the lowest seat belt use in the nation -- just 49.6% in 2003...
However, this being the age that it is, when principles are the redheaded stepchildren to pragmatism and when revenue is sovereign instead of rights, it takes numbers to make a point. One cannot simply argue the rightness or wrongness of anything these days -- at least not with any hope of being taken seriously. And so let's start off by considering the issue in purely numerical terms:
Do seat belts really save as many lives as everyone says? Do they save ANY?"
Go check out the links for the rest of the story.
Sounds like a good reason to get out of the city and go rural....like I did.
Many states have had mandatory ins. for years. Started here around 30 ago.
Hey the people elected them. Your post sounds like a good reason to vote for a person and not a party.
Wow. That sure impressed me. wow. You must really be important.
Apparently the current crop of law enforcement bureaucrats does not share your assessment of this crap. It has long been my contention that people who go into police work are not the sort that think any laws are stupid, useless or downright evil, but take satisfaction in catching violators of every and any thing. This attitude explains why the French police were vigorous in rounding up Jews and turning them over to the Nazis - it was the law. They didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing.
That's the point.
You can get a license with only the bare minimum "mandatory" insurance.
We are out here in Cali. People aren't waiting for the light to go green at the freeway onramps during "meter times" and more people are using the carpool lanes even though they are alone. The Great California Traffic Social Engineering Rebellion is underway. :o)
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.