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.
Kind of makes you wonder just how Republicans differ in substance form Democrats doesn't it. King George II sure doesn't represent the people who elected him.
Remember, when one gets behind the wheel and drives to work, school or whereever, he is sharing the public's road with other drivers. While I am one of the first to complain about govt's intrusions into our lives, whether or not one buckles up does affect the other drivers.
A few years back, a woman lost control of her car and was ejected from her car, over the guardrail onto the freeway below. The investigation that immediatly followed closed the freeway for hours. Fortunately, no one else was hurt, but many were inconvenienced and with the traffic tie-ups that ensued the possibility for subsequent traffic accidents increased greatly. This is definitely a case where a driver's non-use of a belt risked the lives of others.
Wolf, in 30 years of driving, I have had three close calls on the interstate. Everyone of them involved a 'Safety Patrol' officer 'doing his duty' and none of them had anything to do with me. They're the most dangerous drivers out there.
Good God. EVERYTHING affects everyone else. So we should have rules for every nit-picking thing. Correct? I guess so.
By your example - why even drive? It wasn't just her body that affected things - it was her car! So we should ban cars.
It was his post to clarify?
666
You don't have to have 'issues' or get 'wacky' to not want to wear a seat belt.
There are instances where a seat belt can do more harm than good, so it's a matter of weighing the odds.
Sorry, but I can't buy that.
If the initial impact was so bad to eject her because she didn't have a belt on, the impact was also bad enough to knock her out or at least render her unable to control the car anyway.
I guess it has to happen to someone, why not me? LOL
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.