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.
They've been debating opening up the HOV lanes after 7pm here too. In NorCal, they are open to all after 7pm, but down in SoCal, the bureaucrats/nannies are reluctant to do so.
We used to have a Constitution that kept these nut-ball busybodies at bay, alas, no longer...
Your choice of icons sure says a lot about you. No wonder you like seat belt laws. You're afraid of liberty and the attendent risks.
Your logic is flawed. This is still governmental intrusion. Now it just uses the car manufacturers to enforce the intrusion instead of the local LEOs.
It's real simple.
It's all about;
1. Money.
2.Control.
Your argument could be made about Health Insurance and dietary, exercise, and lifestyle choices. I expect you would be on the side of mandating exercise, no sugar, only good fats, no anal intercourse - etc. Since all these drive up your health insurance premiums.
Several problems with that statement.
There are still many questions about just which foods are healthy, there can be no question that seat belts save lives.
Also it's a matter of enforcement, you simply cannot enforce rules mandating eating without a true police state, that is not an issue with seat belts.
That's a powerful story.
Two years ago, two of my cousins were in a crash. The unbelted driver suffered scratches and bruises. His brother, belted in, died instantly when his neck was broken. The seatbelt held his body in place, but it didn't stop his head from being severely thrown about. He may have suffered other injuries had he not been buckled up, but it's likely that he would not have died either.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
It's a matter of courtesy even more than it is grammar, spelling and capitalization. It makes your comments easier to read when caps are used.
"...there can be no question that seat belts save lives. "
That is not true any more than it can be said that there is global warming, and it's mans fault. And both have "statistics" to back them up.
There can be no question that a healthy lifestyle has much more bearing on an individual's cost to "society" than wearing a seat belt.
Smoke, you are apt to die early, with large medical expenses attending your demise.
Be obese, shave many years off your (corporate) useful existence, and add much to your lifetime health care costs.
Climb a ladder to clean your gutters - accidents at home are a big cause of death and injury - and you are engaging in highly dangerous behavior. Should be prohibited - eh?
Engage in risky behavior (skiing, horseback riding, swimming), and you may end up being a burden to your fellow man. Better to stay at home watching TV (except for your mandatory calethestics).
There are lots of things one could "save lives" or extend lives. Seat belts are a tiny part of the goodness that could be prescribed.
Shall we mandate all of them?
That gives me an idea. What if you had a piece of seat belt from the junkyard attached above the top of the real belt with velcro and simply draped it over your shoulder. That would be impossible to detect as "fake".
There are a gazillion things that can save lives but they don't have to be made into laws.
Here's what one of this nation's founders said about it:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Another point of view:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
By the way, these quotes are from previous discussions on this forum and are a part of a wealth of information on the subject for anyone willing to spend some time looking it up.
A few weeks ago, my insurance agent almost died. Her SUV was rearended by a tractor trailer, and she flipped 6 times. Thank the Lord she had a 2006 model with curtain airbags.
The driver of the rig was NOT TICKETED. Imagine her astonishment when she was told, "he was so nice, I didn't ticket him", by the trooper. She then found out troopers are hesitant to ticket truckers, because then, they have to come back to Virginia. So what???
The trucker is not only out of state, he is Canadian.
Click it, or ticket! Try to kill another driver, and we'll let you go if you're an out of state trucker.
...you are the perfect example of a DUmmy... It is anathema to real conservative!. Seat belts make sense, but not its nothing to be enforced by laws or regulations! I hope you save enough to educate yourself on constitutional principles!
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of the government having the right to mandate that individuals do everything that may increase his chances for a long, healthy life - in fact, I believe that should be left up to an individual.
Unfortunately it is the inverse of your expectation. That's why they're having this crack-down.
A 50% use of seatbelts would be a big improvement over what's happening in real life.
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.