Use any label you want to. You can wrongly call it socialism, but really it's just basic human decency in a modern society with a highly defined division of labor. It is pure lunacy, though, to imagine that the vast majority of your American neighbors are as inured and calloused as the ideologues, are going to just shrug at your broken body lying in their gutter, and sneer: "Let 'im learn the hard way just how unforgiving metal and asphalt are!" Us conservatives are really big on personal responsibility, while ideologues apparently favor torture and a feudal disregard for human rights.
Personally, I liked the Republican-sponsored bill which was narrowly defeated by the Democrats.
By making such aid compulsory, you teach everyone a lesson that they need not take responsibility for their actions. And by subsidizing irresponsible behavior, you just get more of it.
That is because we live in a Christian culture
I know you don't like it, and refuse to acknowledge it, but this isn't a theocracy.
If we were to just shug and let the drunk alone to die beside the road, if his life had no value in our eyes, then we wouldn't need a democracy or a republic, we wouldn't need to grant universal sufferage.
That's quite an assertion. Are we to believe that personal responsibility is incompatible with democracy or republics? And exactly why would taking personal responsibility mean that women could not vote? I see no connection.
We'd just be a bunch of serfs to enrich the ruling class and cannon fodder for their wars to keep them in their feudal power.
This is the result of a lack of socialized medicine? How, exactly? What you have stated is an argument against the draft. I can't see any relevance to voting or feudalism in seatbelt or helmet laws, would you care to explain it?
You ignore the drunk's broken bones only at the peril of the Constitution, whose preamble states that all men are created equal and have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it doesn't say death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering.
Now this is just plain old liberal, living Constitution socialism. The preamble states the reasons for the following enumerated powers. Now you and liberals may take it as a blank check for government to do all kinds of things "for our own good" and maybe even most people agree with you, but this is FR and we know better around here.
People have negative rights, that is the right to not be wrongly deprived of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They most certainly have no right to material goods, such health care or convalescent care that they can't pay for, and obtain at the point of the tax collectors gun, although you and certainly many liberals would strongly disagree. To obtain such things by force is to violate the very rights you just mentioned. You know, its awful funny that you constantly call us "moral liberals", but when it comes right down to it, and this is an excellent example, your ideas are very much the same as theirs.
Use any label you want to. You can wrongly call it socialism, but really it's just basic human decency in a modern society with a highly defined division of labor.
The division of labor has nothing to do with it. The key point here is who pays for medical care of those that injure themselves through reckless behavior. Does the individual and voluntary doners pay, or do others, at the point of a gun, for "the well being of the whole". That is the definition of socialism, regardless of what you or I choose to call it.
It is pure lunacy, though, to imagine that the vast majority of your American neighbors are as inured and calloused as the ideologues, are going to just shrug at your broken body lying in their gutter, and sneer: "Let 'im learn the hard way just how unforgiving metal and asphalt are!"
And here, to no surprise, you assert that if Americans don't help each other through taxes and government support, they would not help at all. As if everything they do, and certainly all acts of charity and forgiveness must stem from the almighty State.
I ride motorcycles myself, and even moreso, I feel a strong kinship with my fellow Americans. Because of this, I have and would stop and voluntarily give aid to any biker I saw in distress, even if his bike were merely broken down, and absolutely if they were hurt. And I may be persuaded to help and donate to the future care of those who hurt themselves, but I'll be damned if I'll be forced to.
Personally, I liked the Republican-sponsored bill which was narrowly defeated by the Democrats.
You know, as much as I disagree with you on just about every bit of this issue, I could live with their bill too.
When the state forces the issue, it's socialism. When folks volunteer their efforts and treasures to some compassionate cause, it's charity. You seem to think that it's good for Christians to force other folks to join in their righteous causes. It's not. It's called theft and amounts to a violation of the 8th commandment. Thou shall not steal. Any "charity" that comes with conditions attached is theft and is not Christian, nor is it in any way decent.
Not far from here is a place called Shriners. They treat burn victims (mostly children) for free. What I hope this says is that the private sector and private donors can and are, willing not to let someone's body lie broken in the gutter.
we live in a Christian culture, where each and every human being has immense worth and value in the eyes of the vast majority of the populace.
Yes, we do, however our government has stepped into the act of providing for others while the private sector is being nudged out. I would agree with much that you've attributed to us as a people, yet our charity and compassion in a private sense have been replaced by government mandates that limit our ability to perform as we might in the absence of government controls. Let's not even discuss government efficiency in delivering services.
This was very eloquent and all, but isn't it a moot point? The bill in question would only allow people to ride w/o helmets if they had insurance. Now, if the injured person has insurance then "we" get paid back (by the insurance company) for doing all this Christian stuff, so the whole "But it costs Society!" argument doesn't fly at all.
So what, then, can be your objection to the bill?