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.
Yep, can't deport 11 million illegals, but they can catch you and give you a ticket if you're not wearing a seat belt.
Well if people want to elect yahoos that believe in that thinking then I guess there is nothing to stop them from doing that.
Yet anothe rpost where not only do you callnames but indeed you go after my children.
You really need to grow up.
I do worship the altar of the RULE OF LAW, after all that is the fabric that makes this nation what it is and indeed what defines an American.
I am sorry you are anti rule of law.
I have no interest in talking with a person that only seeks to call names post after post. Posters like you drive people away from sites like this.
Please refrain from posting to me any further.
Gabz, you forgot the gag alert re the Nanny Staters. See my post 339.
Tokra, the lie comes in when the insurance companies pocket the price savings rather than passing on the savings to premium payers.
You painted the picture, I'm just trying to fit it in a frame.
A CHOICE!!!!
Amazing aint it??? You can add features to improve your personal safety. You can wear a helmet! You can wear bullet proof skivies.
I would think that someone as learned as yourself could at least be courteous enough to use punctuation and decent grammar. Maybe not.
seems my assumption was correct on at least one point. You said so yourself right?
You learned ona washboard road. Not all people have.
I love how you will inject abortion into this.
As your position will be that of no abortion ever( assumption on my part there) I will say that you better stop with your angle that this is about persobnal choice because you will hit your own roadblock when these two things mix!
I do love however that you found a way to tie abortion to seat belts!
If you lose control of your vehicle, even if after the initial collision, you are more likely to hit more cars(containing other people) on the road.
Dr. Williams nails it as usual. Back when I was on the beat, I felt I had more important things to do than worry about who was wearing seat belts. Hell, even aggressive drunk driving enforcement was more defensible than this crap.
Its absolutely ridiculous.. doing a little verbal dance before the arrest(that is sure to happen) is silly in the extreme.. to make the LEO appear as a drone.. Which is the purpose of it completely.. The purpose of it is not to aid the arrestee but to demoralize the LEO..
The only new law I would support is a limit on the sale of shovels to those unqualified in their proper use.
Fair point made, one that should be said loudly over and over.
And school busses carry our children without being belted in and the school bus is less safe than today's automobiles.
Government and common sense are mutually exclusive.
What BS
Socialism has nothing to do with either of these laws.
Correct, it's NANNYSTATISM. And modern liberalism.
Why is it OK to have speed limits, but not seat belt laws.
One violates others rights, one doesn't.
>>I wonder if this ad campaign is running nationwide. "Click It or Ticket" radio and TV ads have been running constantly here in Connecticut over the past several weeks...<<
Boy am I glad I dumped tv AND radio.
Group discount. :)
Impose insurance which is basically a fine before the infraction.....but you oppose a seat belt mandate?
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.