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.
Great post, and a great article. I adore Walter Williams.
Thanks for posting the article.
Exactly.
There's a direct correlation between this issue and the current eminent domain issues - out of control government power fueled by greedy legislatures and municipalities.
It is up to us to wrest control back from the Stalinistas and restore common sense and respect for the Bill of Rights and the spirit of the declaration of Independence.
I am not an animal to be stifled and fed by keepers trying to convince me "We're from the government and we're here to help."
Times and technology have changed and today could well be a great addition to the fold.
So, in your mind, efficient technology justifies governmental intrusion?
You have it precisely backwards.
It is because the government has so many safety nets out there that people figure that they don't have to take care of themselves.
Besides, the government has no such mandate. Doing so is a usurpation of power and money that is not their's.
Ooops. Forgot about them.
Would you believe 85%? (In my best Maxwell Smart voice)
LOL
GAWD! Keeping typing this way then, by all means. Your thoughts must be positively unreadable, not just difficult, otherwise.
Some people prefer safety to the animating contest that is freedom.
What they don't realize is that there is no such thing as safety, only a feeling of safety, and it's no more than an illusion most of the time.
The Founders rose up against the Constitution?
Very nicely stated. Bravo!
Can't break their hearts too badly or they'd find a career in something else.
WWe used to have a 1st, a 2nd, and a 4th amendment all of which have seen severe erosion in the last 20 years.
Not fair I get the government New Yorkers deserve. :-(
I wonder how the nice defense would work if I were caught going 80 on rt 95 between Richmond and Washington?
Sadly enough too many who hand out on this nominally conservative forum see nothing wrong with intrusive government as long as it's their ideas that are being crammed down other people's throats.
Thank you and welcome to FR.
He's on a roll and it's all down hill. It's a good thing for him because his argument is going nowhere but down.
BTW, you haven't lived to long, so relax and enjoy.
FReegards.
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.