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 such time as you can see the law changed you just have to follow it, or pay the consequences for not doing so.
I gotta say that is a new one on me. Appears that it was quite limited and did not last long due to troubles with the clunky technology.
Times and technology have changed and today could well be a great addition to the fold.
I am all for people managing their own lives. It would be nice if people would actually do it. For if they did the government would have no need to do so.
I don't follow the rest of your post, but completely agree with the above quote.
And will add, this law was brought about through deception. And being deceived is never acceptable.
>>Wow. That sure impressed me. wow. You must really be important.<<
HEH, HEH. I was delivering a pizza at the time, in a beater pickup. :)
That's the difference between you and me. You cling to the belief that it is necessary for the government to, at some point, manage our lives if we are not doing what they have decided is correct.
The fly in this ointment is where do they draw the line? It seems to be a moving line and they are taking more of our freedoms away each time they advance it.
Picture your rights as a block of cheese in the fridge and each day they come in and slice off a piece of it. If you don't think that this is actually happening you've been spending too much time watching reruns of "Pewee's Playhouse".
I noticed that the traffic lights on freeway onramps in Seattle and Chicago are treated very differently. You virtually never see people in Seattle ignore them. In the Chicago area, it seemed that most people ignored them.
What I find comical is on several freeways in the Seattle area, the HOV lane is open to all cars after 7:00 pm and has been that way for a year or so. Yet I will still see someone veering in and out of lanes, cutting people off and otherwise driving rather inappropriately, yet never touch the HOV lane even though it is after seven and the lane is basically empty - except for me, who is easily overtaking said vehicle, and I am alone, with the top down...
of course I probably wouldn't even need my seat belt if they caught all the drunk drivers and speeders (which by the way is already illegal)and of course here in the bluest of blue states Massachuestts you might aslo get hit by an illegal immigrant with a state issued drivers license
Yeah, I went to Cincinnatti once and at around 11 pm I was in a nightspot part of town and saw guys tooling around on their Harleys with no helmet. It looked safe and fun. Then the next day I was on my way to Dayton on the freeway going about 90. A kid and his girlfriend blew by me on their crotch rocket with NO HELMETS. It didn't look fun. It looked really REALLY stupid.
I always wear my helmet when I ride my bike and usually wear my helmet on the motorcycle (anytime I'm expecting to be going over 25 mph. I firmly believe it should not be dictated by law, however.
If your ego is that easily wounded I recommend "Ego-Shield for Windows 1.8". It blocks any and all text that might possibly lower the user's self-esteem.
You might want to go check out these links for the other side of the story:
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.
Go to fredoneverything.net. Go to his articles and scroll down to the article. It is really a good, and depressing, read. Depressing mainly because it implies that the very freedoms we used to enjoy contained the seeds of the socialism and nanny state that would replace it.
That's sort of my point - they aren't the type of people to make moral judgements on the constitutionality or even common sense of laws they enforce.
I was a cop starting in the 60's...when we were extremely unpopular.
I got version 2.1, it comes with prozac! :-)
Exactly. Rule number one in the police academy is "you are not a judge". You will have to enforce laws that will, sometimes, break your heart.
Also, flick them the bird when you pass them (unclench your middle finger from around the steering wheel).
Just kidding. But seat belt enforcement does amount to state tyranny.
BUMP
What you seem to fail to understand is that we are not doing or even advocating the things that you mention (drugs) or other things that people do, but when it comes to prohibiting the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their homes it's an enormous task that requires a police state to enforce the ban.
Do you put a cop in every home? Do you add another cop to watch the first cop? Do you put in cameras and have monitors to watch? Who monitors the monitors?
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.