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.
"Count me in on that..."
Even our founding fathers loathed government and created one only out of necessity. They limited it as much as they could and warned of the potential dangers of allowing it to grow.
Ah, but man must tinker with everything!
I disagree for the reasons I already mentioned. Thank you for your opinion.
H. L. Mencken
It is, perhaps, a fact provocative of sour mirth that the Bill of Rights was designed trustfullly to prohibit forever two of the favorite crimes of all known governments: the seizure of private property without aqequate compensation and the invasion of the citizen's liberty without justifiable cause... It is a fact provocative of mirth uet more sour that the executions of these prohibitions was put into the hands of the courts, which is to say, into tht hands of lawyers, which is to say into the hands of men specifically educated to discover legal excuses for dishonest, dishonorable and anti-social acts.
At its heart, the Constitution is a very libertarian document: strictly limited and explicitly enumerated government powers, and a Bill of Rights which is a list of negative liberties, meaning, ways in which the government is supposed to leave you alone.
That said, today's government has far exceeded the Constitutional constraints set upon it. But for you to call yourself a "law and order Republican" should not sanctify the unconstitutional usurpations of power. True Conservatives, in my opinion, are far more libertarian.
No kidding? Other constitutions? Who'da thunk it?
He hasn't bothered to respond or defend his post. Why are you?
the english magna carta was the constitution of the time...maybe you need a history lesson...the US constitution is not the only constitution in the world
Please add me to your ping list.
Thanks in advance.
Back in the 60's, the do gooders forced the automakers into including seat belts so people had a "choice"... The communists in the state legislatures decided the "choice" was not valid, and this was a nice way to steal money from the citizens for using their power of "choice", by fining them if they made a "choice"....In my opinion, every elected official should have ONE term, and then vote them out.
You assume that 'they' are stupid. Many have good reason to refuse to wear one more than just the fact that it's none of the government's business and outside their authority to demand it.
...but why does it become MY RESPONSIBILTY to pay for his right to be stupid?
Because of the politicians who pander to those who don't accept responsibility for their own actions. It's not my fault. I vote against that type of politician every time they reveal themselves.
Is the right to personal stupidity in the constitution? Was that an amendment I missed?
You really don't know what the Constitution, or even this country, is about, do you? Here's a clue: Read the 9th and 10th Amendments.
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.
Those of us who are arguing against mandatory seat belt laws are not arguing for YOU to pay for the costs of anyone's injuries. We are on the side of personal responsibility. When you cede authority to the government, you give up personal responsibility. That sounds more like your position than ours.
Aah, you finally decided to respond.
Don't blame me for the fact that your post wasn't clear. I wasn't the only one to question your meaning.
The Magna Carta is usually referred to as such, not as the constitution and I don't recall the DoI ever mentioning the Magna Carta as the reason for independence. Perhaps it's in your copy, but it's not in mine.
MY opinion is that every politician who votes for any abridgement of the constitutional rights should be lined up against the wall and executed as a salutary example to the rest. :-)
That might work.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The constitution codifies our God-given rights. Nothing in there about God-given right to insurance.
If anybody in this conversation is a closet liberal hippie, it is you through your subscription to the idea that society is right to hold you or me responsible for someone else's decision to be an idiot and to pay for the repurcussions of that decision.
Further, you don't seem to have any problem with the government using an intrusive, big-brother law to bilk money out of people so they can redistribute it to lazy nlow-life ne'er-do-well slobs.
Just another reason to keep my 1984 Landcruiser running.
BTW, I successfully made it through two of these dad-blasted checkpoints this past weekend, biting my tongue while refraining from shifting into low 4WD and just going cross-country through the fence.
I also resisted the urge to say "You seem like a nice young man, and I would hate to see you get in trouble. My 7th-grade Civics teacher told me that things like this could never happen in the United States of America. Are you sure you can do this?"
It just galls me to no end, and makes me feel sorry for my children and my (due July 1) grandchild.
I hope they can straighten this out without too much bloodshed.
It's pretty clear from the context that the BRITISH constitution is what is meant. Why shouldn't I make sure that point is clarified?
"Anyone stupid enough to drive without wearing a seatbelt who is injured in an accident deserves what he gets, ..."
"You assume that 'they' are stupid. Many have good reason to refuse to wear one more than just the fact that it's none of the government's business and outside their authority to demand it."
Yes, you're correct. My mother doesn't like them at all because she has "claustrophobia" issues, if that's the right term (and she does have claustrophobia - she doesn't like to sleep on the side of a bed which is close to a wall). In any case, it's related. She doesn't like being "strapped down" - that may relate to the way she was treated by a surgeon at a hospital as a child. (They lied to her about what where she was going, then as she realized the lie they were strapping her forcefully into the surgery guerney, etc.)
So there are people with emotional/mental issues who get wacky over things like this.
I've had my car broken into 8 times in the last year, and I live in a neighborhood that looks like the set of Leave it to Beaver (which is probably why they pick our neighborhood).
In WA state, you practically get a handshake for stealing a car, yet I'm watching expensive ads on TV warning me to wear my seatbelt?
How about an ad that says, "Touch my car one more time and I'll cut your head off and put it on a pike outside of city hall."
Oh, and by the way I do agree that with up to 20 million illegals here and 1000's pouring across our southern border, the entire campaign is absurd. Let's enforce laws on people who are basically already law abiding, is what in effect they are saying.
More rules for the legals. More fishing rules, more traffic rules, more no this and no that rules, more tax rules, more insurance rules. BUT NO RULES FOR THE ILLEGAL! How much of this CR*P are we going take.
My grandson is 3 and his dad is off to Iraq later this year. Damn right this stuff is galling.
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.