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.
Most people I know have bare minimum + uninsured, unless they have a newer car. Rates are so ridiculously high out here that only those with really nice cars want comprehensive.
I know it's got to seem that way but they are required to enforce even the most ridiculous laws if they are going to honor their oath.
point taken, and I agree. It really is a "Suicide of Marlboro Man" sort of thing.
Now we can move on to helmet laws for bikers and rile up some more people. Or as we refer to them at work, 'DonorCycles'. (organ donation)
>>If you take a stupid risk...then I will pay with taxes for your choice.<<
Gee, thanks. So you also get to tell me what I can and can't do.
I don't really like that arrangement.
We have some newbies aboard, who have only been with us about 8 months or so, and have missed a lot of this discussion on this forum in years passed.
End of argument. People either agree with this statement or disagree with it, either decision has consequences.
Some argue about higher insurance rates while others argue about greater state control over the individual. As for me, I'll take the higher rates if it means individual liberty. So, who owns me, freepers? Am I owned by society or myself?
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.
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.
"Old friends know where you've been, New friends know where you're going" -- Bob Segar. :-)
Very interesting phrase on the Marlboro Man.
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.
Nothing in the post you whined about regarding your kids. Just a picture of sheep.
Its not what I WANT to do...it is how our society is at present.It is reality. If you don't like it, change those laws.
You take a risk and end up injured for life. We all pay taxes to take care of you...no individual insurance will cover that care for the rest of your life.
Now, if you want a brain damaged person who drove his cycle without a helmet to be out on the street..no benefits, no medical care...well, then you've got "freedom". Oh, and that is not socialism.
True. Consider however the catastrophic fund bank the state has.
Vehicle Insurance Cost Increase — As the result of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Fund running a deficit, the cost of automobile insurance attributable to these types of claims will increase 11.4% to $141.70 effective July 1, 2005. This Fund pays health insurance costs in excess of $350,000 and is currently paying out some $50 million monthly. This cost is built into the insurance rates companies charge for automobile insurance. The Claims Fund Association is a statutorily created private, non-profit entity.
http://www.mi-sera.org/lr/2005/0405.html
No tickets, accidents, claims, living in suburbia, 2 adult drivers, one 4 year old minivan, and I'm paying $1,400 a year for ins. and that is cheap here. So 10% of my rate goes to protecting other peoples 'right'. Don't make sense dude!
Exactly! This is what they are trying to pull of with global warming.
I just read another post from MSNBC where the current scare story is that global warming will help poison ivy grow to huge proportions.
Those exact same conditions that would cause that would also allow the world's food crops to grow likewise, but you will never hear that from them. They put their "liberal filter" on all the news and this is the result.
Excellent. You said it better than I could.
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.