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.
you sound like such a libertarian..."its capitalism, stupid"
When I started driving, a significant number of vehicles on the highway did not have seat belts. The dashboards were made of steel, no padding, no airbags, no crumple zones, bias ply tires, no antilock brakes, no traction control computers, some didn't even have collapsing steering columns.
If you did not get into a wreck, you did just fine.
All those gee-gaws are really nice, but they are no substitute for paying attention, and not driving like a bloody idiot.
"i think this is a great campaign...it keeps my car insurance down because my premiums go up every time a stupid person decides to drive down the road with out a seatbelt and hit another car and die. this has been around for about a year now in california and it has worked well. i have yet to get a ticket because im not stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt...its equivalent to bungee jumping without a cord...common sense people."
Most Communist Socialists do think it's a good idea.
Speaking of common sense, there's a book I recommend you read. It's called "Uncommon Sense" Probably written by a person you would loath.
His name was Thomas Paine.
It's always about the money. Here in Nashville, our mayor openly admitted that he wants a 33% increase in revenues from traffic violations. And he's got the police chief, who's a political hack and a sap anyway, sending his cops out there to collect. I wonder if they even bother writing tickets to the illegals they stop? I mean, if they don't pay the fine, they're not going to bother to arrest them anyway since it's too much trouble and won't bring in any money. I don't know that "traffic anarchy" is the result of this kind of thing, but trying to pretend that I have "respect for the law" gets tougher by the minute.
So...where do YOU draw the line? When they tell you what kind of car you HAVE to drive? That you can only drive from point A to point B? That only a certain class of people can drive?
What is is, mr lemming?
Privilege my a$$! You're a sheeple and you're full of it.
These seatbelt nazis are the types of people that think big government is always good for us.
Nope the Second Amendment is pretty clear on guns, not so for cars, or horse-drawn carriages, if you want to go back that far.
TWICE! Two times, the voters in Mass. shot down seatbelt laws, byt the legislature pushed them through anyway.
Yep just doing their duty - enforcing the law. In (maryland I think) I heard that they've banned charcoal grills for the same reason, but not propane grills (yet). Don't you feel all safe now knowing that the police are vigilantly protecting you from propane grills?
"The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it."
They are a nanny state and I DON'T applaud them for it. No matter. You are obviously a woman. Women value "security" over individual freedom while men tend to reverse the priorities.
Preserving life at all costs is not the ultimate goal, otherwise men would not have fought and died for the liberties you enjoy, but are being etched away in the name of "safety". By all means, tell people belts are safer. Show them statistics. Plead with them to put their cars in carseats. Just don't make it the law!
"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's a good pro-drug-use argument.
That statement is more appropriate to an absolute monarchy or a Communist dictatorship than to our form of government, at least in theory. Under monarchism or Communism, the sovereign or the state owns everything and anything you do is by the permission of that authority. It is impractical for a road system to be owned by anyone other than a state agency, although some libertarians believe that roads could be privatized.
If the state must own the roads in a free society, what regulations are posted on the roads should be the minimum necessary to maintain order. Too often government, motivated by nanny state ideology or unduly influenced by insurance company and other lobbyists, have used their power over the roads to impose oppressive controls. The notorious 55 MPH speed limit of the 1970s and 1980s (which Hillary Clinton has proposed to revive) was the most egregious of these controls.
A sound adage in these matters comes from an old Hank Williams, Sr., song, "If you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine."
That tired old line is pure BS. If my taxes construct the roads, I sure as hell have a right to use them to go place to place.
Wow, looking with amazement at some of these responses... Who knew that for so many on FR nanny statism was celebrated and Liberty was such a dirty word... May there be a zero-tolerance 55 mph speed limit with gps tracking, active government monitoring, and $1000 fines in your future...
Ah yes, the originals, who redated the seat-belt kind.
so is it alright to smoke medical marijuana, crack cocaine, crystal meth...it doesnt harm others if i do it in my home....the socialist government is keeping me down (sarcasm)...im being brought down by "the man"
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.