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.
Which IMO is wrong. And is a usurpation of federal power.
If it is a "right" as you proclaim, why do we even need licenses? If it is a "right" I shouldn't even need a license to drive, right? Now maybe you believe that there should not be Drivers Licenses, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
The purpose was to make sure all the citizens understood their rights. Do you think it's a good thing if someone doesn't know their rights?
And if you think the SCOTUS made this decision so they could make the police look like drones and demoralize them you are incorrect. Not to mention disconnected from reality.
You can agree or disagree with the decision, but to characterize the motives of the judges in that way requires a vivid imagination.
Before this law, and even after, many LEOs lied to arrestees about their rights. That is a fact.
The truth is, it takes them off the hook by disallowing the defendants from claiming they didn't know their rights.
I have problems with the guilty not being held accountable because some imbecile didn't do his job. That part could be changed, but on balance, it was a good decision IMO.
Your mileage may differ.
It was NOT capitalized (not that much is, in his posts); he MEANT the British "constitution", the unwritten rules/approach of the British government. There are other constitutions besides the US Federal.
Before this law, and even after, many LEOs lied to arrestees about their rights.
"Insurance is a man-made construct - a societal decision to create the ability to indemnify. You don't have a constitutional right to insurance."
Ho-hum... The constitution is also a man-made construct. So what? That is the way our society works. In our society, insurance is a necessity unless you want to be a burden on society. The flip side is that the failure to wear seat belts also can become a burden on society. Sad to say, but we do need laws to make lazy, ignorant slobs accept their personal responsibility in our society.
Anyone stupid enough to drive without wearing a seatbelt who is injured in an accident deserves what he gets, but why does it become MY RESPONSIBILTY to pay for his right to be stupid? Is the right to personal stupidity in the constitution? Was that an amendment I missed? I'm amazed that so-called FR conservatives think that society is somehow responsible for the incompetent fools who are too stupid to realize that a car wreck can leave you crippled or dead. This is liberalism at its worst. I never realized there were so many closet hippie-liberals here who can't accept responsibility.
I'm sure that happens sometimes.
Here in SC if your car has a lap and a shoulder belt, and you are wearing one without the other, you will get ticketed.
And, they have checkpoints and stop every car looking for ticketable offenses.
And, you are wrong about it being dangerous as bungee jumping, that's just silly. In fact, lap belts can be very dangerous for some folks depending on their size and how it fits (especially women).
The cops spend inordinate time as revenue generators for the city/state/county rather than out patrolling neighborhoods deterring crime.
Cars can easily have automatic seat belts (attached to the door). My car shoulder seatbelt is automatic. It's quite convenient especially when exiting the vehicle.
I agree fully
Jeez, does every thread have to digress into immigration?
Very true, here is SC is was that way until they came up with the click-it or ticket, which has led to roadblock checkpoints.
I wish this man would take RINO John Warner's place as U.S. Senator. A great article and the plain truth of the whole matter. Common sense missing in todays leadership.
Actually, they already have it (and have for the last couple of years of car models). It's called OBDIII. Your car literally broadcasts a signal giving out the same information that OBDII gives when you plug in. It also broadcasts things like how fast you are going, how many passengers are wearing their seat belts, etc.
One state has conducted experiments showing that with OBDIII they can track eight lanes of traffic doing 100 mph. You could literally get speeding tickets in the mail because your vehicle told them, at a tracking point, that you were doing 45 in a 35. You could also get "environmental" tickets because your check engine light is on and it is telling you that you have a bad oxygen sensor.
And then there are the seat belt tickets...
Needless to say, because every car broadcasts its own ID with the signal (which is how they know it is you), they could also track where you go at all times and just refer to the historical data when necessary.
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?
What kind of logic is that? Since when do non-seatbelt wearers raise your rates? Seems to me you're insistence on selecting a company that uses statistical actuarial tables to set it's rates is what is at fault. You can have a steady rate if you're willing to bond yourself. Don't blame others for being to lazy or fearful to control your own costs.
You volunteered to accept possibly higer rates when you elected to select a 3rd party insurer to protect you. The vast majority of those rates (collision as opposed to liability) also go toward merely covering the cost of vehicle repair and replacement.
>>And amazingly enough there are plenty of morons on this, a supposedly conservative forum, who haven't realized that the government isn't their friend.<<
Count me in on that...
He would be a treasure, unfortunately he would NEVER get elected in today's climate of wealth re-distribution and governmental nannyism.
Your idea of life is full of risks and I'll take mine went out about the turn of this century.
Because POLITICIANS, playing on the fears of the aggregate of the masses, promised them securities that they can in whole never deliver on, in exchange for power.
They can near literally get society to do anything if they rider the bills with sappy platitudes like "and will insure the inability of under-the-bed monsters from runneling their fingers through the intestines of defenceless children".
Somewhere in the future...
"Yea Bob, I guess it will take some gettin' used to that new government biweekly broomhandle hemmorhoid examination, but everytime I gripe about it Wanda reminds me, you know, it's for the children..."
It was the easiest example of non-enforcement to call to mind.
Hmm.. like the Sandy Burgular affair?.. Bill Clinton selling the Chinese the "Aegis System" and god knows what else?.. Like the democrat party literally stealing the Social Security trust fund, long ago?.. like the Federal Reserve Banking Act that was never fully ratified?...
Miranda accomplishs NOTHING.. except denyablity of the appearance of guilt.. The Miranda verbal cascade recited to the arrestee STOPS NO malfeance by the LEO's.. IF the LEO has a mind to mal-fease.. The court would/could appoint a lawyer whether the recital was read OR not..
You cannot cleanup the LEO system or even keep them honest by the mere recital of a few words.. If so; a so called Miranda type caveat should be read daily to every District Attorney and Judge.. where as much malfeance goes on as with the arresting COP.. maybe more.. considering plea bargins and all that..
Miranda merely puts lipstick on lawyers(and judges) making them appear better looking Drama Queens.. it aborts zero malfeance..
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.