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.
Some states require front and back seat. That's BS!!!!
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/state_laws-belts04/safeylaws-states.htm
As of July 2004, 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary safety belt laws. New Hamphire is the only state that has no adult safety belt law.
| State | Who is Covered? In What Seat? |
Date of Passage | Maximum Fine First Offense |
|
Alabama |
6+ yrs. in front seat |
1999 |
$25 |
|
California |
16+ yrs. in all seats |
1993 |
$20 |
|
Connecticut |
4+ yrs. in front seat |
1986 |
$15 |
|
Delaware |
16+ in all seats |
2003 |
$25 |
|
D.C. |
16+ yrs. in all seats |
1997 |
$50 |
|
Georgia |
6-17 yrs. in all seats; 18+ yrs. in front seat |
1996 |
$15 |
|
Hawaii |
4-17 yrs. in all seats; 18+ yrs. in front seat |
1985 |
$45 |
|
Illinois |
6+ yrs. in front seat; all in all seats if driver is younger than 18 yrs. |
2003 |
$25 |
|
Indiana |
16+ yrs. in front seat |
1998 |
$25 |
|
Iowa |
11+ yrs. in front seat |
1986 |
$10 |
|
Louisiana |
13+ in front seat |
1995 |
$25 |
|
Maryland |
16+ yrs. in front seat |
1997 |
$25 |
|
Michigan |
4-15 yrs. in all seats; 4+ yrs. in front seat |
2000 |
$25 |
|
New Jersey |
7 yrs. and younger and 80+ lbs.; 8-17 yrs. in all seats; 18+ yrs. in front seat |
1999 |
$20 |
|
New Mexico |
18+ yrs. in all seats |
1986 |
$25 |
|
New York |
16 + yrs. in all seats |
1984 |
$50 |
|
North Carolina |
16+ yrs. in front seat |
1985 |
$25 |
|
Oklahoma |
All in front seat |
1997 |
$20 |
|
Oregon |
16+ in all seats |
1990 |
$75 |
|
Tennessee |
4+ yrs. in front seats |
2004 |
$10 |
|
Texas |
4-16 yrs. in all seats; 17+ yrs. in front seat |
1985 |
$200 |
|
Washington |
All in all seats |
2002 |
$101 |
|
Puerto Rico |
All in all seats |
1975 |
$10 |
| State | Who is Covered? In What Seat? |
Maximum Fine First Offense |
|
Alaska |
16+ yrs. in all seats |
$15 |
|
Arizona |
5-15 yrs. in all seats; 5+ yrs. in front seat |
$10 |
|
Arkansas |
15+ yrs. in front seat |
$25 |
|
Colorado |
16+ yrs. in front seat |
$15 |
|
Florida |
6-17 yrs. in all seats; 6+ yrs. in front seat |
$30 |
|
Idaho |
4+ yrs. in all seats |
$25 |
|
Kansas |
14+ yrs. in front seat |
$10 |
|
Kentucky |
More than 40 inches in all seats |
$25 |
|
Maine |
18+ yrs. in all seats |
$50 |
|
Massachusetts |
12+ yrs. in all seats |
$25 |
|
Minnesota |
3-10 yrs. in all seats; all in front seat |
$25 |
|
Mississippi |
4-7 yrs. in all seats; 8+ yrs. in front seat; law is primary for under 8 yrs. |
$25 |
|
Missouri |
4-15 yrs. in all seats; 4+ yrs. in front seat; law is primary for under 16 yrs. |
$10 |
|
Montana |
6+ yrs. in all seats |
$20 |
|
Nebraska |
18+ yrs. in front seat |
$25 |
|
Nevada |
5+ yrs. in all seats |
$25 |
|
New Hampshire |
-- |
|
|
North Dakota |
18+ yrs. in front seat |
$20 |
|
Ohio |
4+ yrs. in front seat |
$30 dvr.; $20 pass. |
|
Pennsylvania |
18+ in front seat; 8-17 yrs. in all seats |
$10 |
|
Rhode Island |
7+ yrs in all seats; law is primary for under 18 yrs. (eff. 7/05) |
$57 |
|
South Carolina |
6+ yrs. in front seat; 6+ yrs. in rear seat w/shoulder belt; law is primary for under 18 yrs. |
$10 |
|
South Dakota |
5+ yrs. in front seat |
$20 |
|
Utah |
16+ yrs. in all seats; law is primary for under 19 yrs. |
$45 |
|
Vermont |
16+ yrs in all seats |
$25 |
|
Virginia |
16+ yrs. in front seat |
$25 |
|
West Virginia |
9-17 yrs. in all seats; 9+ yrs. in front seat |
$25 |
|
Wisconsin |
4+ yrs in front seat; 4-15 yrs. in rear seat w/shoulder belt |
$10 |
|
Wyoming |
5+ yrs. in all seats |
$25 dvr.; $10 pass. |
One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over, hoping for a different result.
This looks like an absolute meltdown.
You forgot power
Until they mandate Dayglo colors, or flashing headlights if you don't have it buckled.
Disagreement with a law is no reason to whine about the fines you get when you are caught breaking them.
I would much rather it not be a law but it is and I respect the Rule of Law and how it was put in place.
So by your rational, slavery was acceptable because it was supported by law.
I have offered my resolution to this issue. That being make cars require seatbelts to operate. Funny how noone wanted to talk about that SOLUTION because to many are too busy caling names and screaming about their "rights".
Your resolution is ridiculous and you are totally missing the point of everyone's argument. As to crying about being called names, stop acting like a communist and people won't call you one.
No seat belt law has been ruled unconstitutional nor will it ever be. The reason being is that choice is available, that is another point that I have made that goes undisputed.
Well, it must be nice having all those options in the city, but out here in rural America we can't take a taxi to work. You take away my car, you take away my ability to provide a living for myself. Call me lazy, but I will not ride my bicycle 25 miles through the snow.
When you rail againt the rule of law you rail against the very basic notion of conservatism, for when there is no law there is nothing left to conserve.
So, if I understand you correctly, the government is here to make rules for us to live by.
The statement you made about the deer running into people's cars is probably the dumbest thing I've read all day. Any collision with an animal that would knock an unsecured driver into the passenger seat of their car would almost certainly cause a secured driver to jerk the wheel in a manner which would have the same effect.
You claim that you are leaving Free Republic because the majority of people here refuse to conform to your idea of what a government is supposed to be. You should check out Democratic Underground. I'm confidant you will fit in there.
I never said seatbelts don't help. I just posted the information provided by the same state that said they saved lives in this article.
Lights and seatbelts are as different as night and day. Not having lights, or brakes, or turn signals can harm others. Wearing or not wearing a seatbelt only injures the person who chooses one way or the other.
My husband and his best friend are both alive today because they were NOT wearing seat belts when an idiot ran a red light and hit them broadside some years ago.
I'm alive today because I WAS wearing a seatbelt when some idiot crossed a major highway and I slammed my brakes and went into a ditch instead of hitting him broadside.
I got my drivers license in the 1970's, long before seat belt laws, and was taught to use a seat belt. I don't need the daggonned grubbermint telling me to wear it. Wearing it doesn't make me a better driver.
OOPS.....my bad.
Sorry. I also meant to say on my last post that this admission of yours that I am educated and informed constitutes progress.
I hope it continues.
Not quite at 99% around here.........illegals don't have real licenses.
I LIKE Walter Williams!
And he didn't even ping me!! :-((
What misdirection?
all I did was post a statistic issued by the same state (where I live) that basically says the nanny state is not working, even though they claim the opposite.
My argument is not against wearing or not wearing a seatbelt, my gripe is with the mandate of it.
Some A-holes kept me busy almost all day, just working in responses to this thread in-between my three jobs.
Sorry, it won't happen again.
Wait, No, i didn't mean you.
I was referring to my name being in the meltdown post you were commenting on. :-)
3 jobs?? Wow.
I know, Joe.
I meant to start out with "Neither did I".
Been a long day.
Long story.
I'll tell you about it sometime, but not tonight.
Keep up the good fight.
Thanks, you too! And hopefully a good nights sleep!
Alternately, I have my JD with fancy shot glass and a fresh pot of coffee. The night is young. :-)
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.