OK then so it is OK to require a 17 year old to wear a belt but not an 18 year old or older? Or is it 20 year olds we restrain and not 21 year olds?
Care to comment?
you not restrained while your kids are in the car? Protecting the children right?
I hope you have fun trying to justify your position being that is directly contradicts itself when age is injected.
Then I suppose you will have to admit that you define liberty by age. Good luck with that one HA HA HA HA.
OK then so it is OK to require a 17 year old to wear a belt but not an 18 year old or older? Or is it 20 year olds we restrain and not 21 year olds?
At the threshold at which reasonable people agree (democratically) that a youth is capable of making life and death decision for himself without need his parents' mandate, he can choose. 5-year-olds certainly need to be protected by government against parental neglect. 17 year-olds don't.
Perhaps driving age makes sense, because when a kid is driving, he is acting as an adult.
>>you not restrained while your kids are in the car? Protecting the children right?
If the kids are restrained, fine. Of course, you might bring in the nanny/police state if Daddy risks a coronary from bad diet, or death from dangerous sports, too, right (you did read the article, didn't you? These topics were covered.)
>>I hope you have fun trying to justify your position being that is directly contradicts itself when age is injected.
I did. Nice thing about having principles is that they apply quite universally.
>>Then I suppose you will have to admit that you define liberty by age. Good luck with that one HA HA HA HA.
Kids don't have the same liberty because they aren't knowledgeable or mature enough to handle the responsibility of the decisions liberty brings. Just because young 'ens aren't ready for liberty does not justify treating all adults as children.