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.
Meanwhile the Mexican invasion continues unabated with the connivance of federal state and local governments. Of course you wouldn't want the police to crack down on wetbacks. No money in it. Guess it's obvious the government by, for and of the people isn't the taxpaying middle class people whose loot powers the government.
And, yes, government at all levels has an interesting set of priorities, does it not?
i think this is a great campaign...it keeps my car insurance down because my premiums go up every time a stupid person decides to drive down the road with out a seatbelt and hit another car and die. this has been around for about a year now in california and it has worked well. i have yet to get a ticket because im not stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt...its equivalent to bungee jumping without a cord...common sense people.
In VA it's a secondary offense not to wear a seatbelt.
I couldn't agree more. The only thing that I can see that is good about seat belt laws is that we the people will be paying less for someone who injures themself in an accident and carries no insurance. But that is the only thing I can see good about them. I'm referring to adults of course, since children aren't able to make these decisions for themselves.
You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.
Let's compare the societal costs imposed by seatbeltless driving, and, say...illegal immigration, which, for some odd reason, government seems less eager to crack down on.
When I go to work I need to make a left turn at a traffic light that has a left turn light. There is almost no oncoming traffic but traffic going my direction is very heavy – but the light will not give me green until the cross street gets a green, which can be several minutes.
Anyway, what I do is, if there is no other car stopped there, I simply make a turn without even slowing down (assuming there are no oncoming cars and nobody in the crosswalk”. Well, the other day, a car ahead of me pulled into the lane and I thought, “nuts, I’m gonna have to wait for the light”. I was shocked when he did exactly what I do. And I thought I was such a rebel…
I don’t stop at such lights any more, unless there is a safety reason like oncoming traffic or a pedestrian. I even did it in front of a cop one day – with no ill effects whatsoever.
I do think we are seeing more traffic anarchy.
"If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights."
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs? When you crush your body in a mangled mess, do you honestly think it doesn't affect everyone else? I wish that weren't the case and that drivers were totally responsible for their own stupidity, but that's not reality.
"In VA it's a secondary offense not to wear a seatbelt."
heh, heh. Yes, it was everywhere else...at first. :)
this is directed by the dept. of transportation of each state to local agencies...this is their job..not immigration. no govt stays focused on one single issue. i think this is a good example of a govt enforcing its laws. they can apply this to immigration by following those laws. by the way...the reference that was made to john stuart mill is right on...except that not buckling up leads to harm of others, by way of higher premiums, and loss of loved ones...this was the sketchiness of mill's four freedoms.
Such an argument can be made for the regulation almost any human behavior: diet, smoking, hobbies, sports, etc.
Next time the lawmakers make a promise, remember what they did to this one.
When they first started ticketing for seatbelts they said they would only do it when they already had stopped a driver for another offense. Now they are going nuclear. Much like when they first started smog control on cars it was fairly reasonable with cars over a certain age being exempt and a maximum on how much you could be forced to spend. Now that program is on steroids. The incrementalism of statists is very effective and chilling.
Any law that saves money is, by definition, a good law.
</sarcasm>
Actually, I logged over half a million miles without a seat belt. How many bungee jumps would one survive without a cord?
how we ever lived through life before seat belts is beyond me.we even rode in the back of pickups.yes we were daredevils.
Hmmm. They want to:
Regardless, the question stands: why seatbelts, and not risky diet, lack of exercise, smoking, sport activities, hobbies, etc.?
This is not a problem associated with liberty.
This is a problem associated with socialism.
It would be great if insurance companies would offer discounts for seat-belt wearers. If you sign up for the discount and you get in an accident when you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you get nothing. It would be like life-insurance discounts for non-smokers...
In MA there is a secondary offense law (you can't be stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, but a fine can be added on for not wearing one if you are stopped for something else). That makes a lot of sense, eh?
NH does not have a seatbelt law for those over 12.
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?
how is government officials enforcing a law that is the most basic law on the books for car drivers bad...how does it lead to a police state....that makes no sense...maybe you need to review your definition of socialism. The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it.
I believe Williams addressed this From the article:
'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.Socialism is the problem not seatbelt violators
Unfortunately, a rather common misconception.
You absolutely do have the right to drive.
>>Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs? When you crush your body in a mangled mess, do you honestly think it doesn't affect everyone else?<<
Ho hum. I think you need to re-read this from the beginning of the article:
>>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."<<
You also say, "I wish that weren't the case and that drivers were totally responsible for their own stupidity, but that's not reality."
Well as the author points out, that argument could be made to force everyone into exercise programs, making salt illegal and controlling the lives of the obese.
Then there are the lives that would be saved if all risky recreational activities were abolished.
Like the author said, it is a steep and slippery slope.
On an related issue but a different target.
I was in a park in Los Angeles on the holiday weekend getting ready to BBQ lunch for 17 people. LAPD officers were on foot patrol around the park and came up and told me I had 20 minutes to get my propane BBQ off of the property as propane BBQ's are now illegal to have in the park. They claim it is a fire hazard. This is a totally enclosed firebox we are talking about here. There were many people using charcoal BBQ'S with 2 foot flames leaping off of them, but those are OK,it is only propane that is illegal. Dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. 2 foot flames, OK
enclosed box not. Couldn't believe it.
It always STARTS as a secondary offense, then the "do-gooders" make it a primary offense
"The seatbelt law was passed here in Florida with the promise that it would have to always be a 'secondary offense'. "
Yes, same here in Washington state. I think it is the same story in pretty much every state where the law has had a chance to "mature".
So even if you are blind? Fail a driver's exam?
"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's a good pro-drug-use argument.
>>how is government officials enforcing a law that is the most basic law on the books for car drivers bad...
It's not about PUBLIC safety. Reread from the article:
"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."
>>how does it lead to a police state...
If you don't get the connection with cops in night vision gear pulling people over who are having no effect on PUBLIC safety, then I 'm not sure my explanations would help. Didn't you read the very brief article?:
"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."
>>And amazingly enough there are plenty of morons on this, a supposedly conservative forum, who haven't realized that the government isn't their friend.<<
I've noticed that as well. It is curious.
I'm betting he didn't get a reply.
thats complete stupidity...im not worried about my driving, but rather the driving of others, such as the other poster about frequently running red lights....or the uninsured illegal immigrants ive been hit by twice out here in so cal. i wear the seat belt for my own protection. If this argument were held true, then assisted suicide should be allowed, but i think only oregon is stupid enough to allow that.
Move to New Hampshire, Walter. Live Free or Die!
The dept of transportation is saving lives and i applaud them for it.
you sound like such a libertarian..."its capitalism, stupid"
When I started driving, a significant number of vehicles on the highway did not have seat belts. The dashboards were made of steel, no padding, no airbags, no crumple zones, bias ply tires, no antilock brakes, no traction control computers, some didn't even have collapsing steering columns.
If you did not get into a wreck, you did just fine.
All those gee-gaws are really nice, but they are no substitute for paying attention, and not driving like a bloody idiot.
"i think this is a great campaign...it keeps my car insurance down because my premiums go up every time a stupid person decides to drive down the road with out a seatbelt and hit another car and die. this has been around for about a year now in california and it has worked well. i have yet to get a ticket because im not stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt...its equivalent to bungee jumping without a cord...common sense people."
Most Communist Socialists do think it's a good idea.
Speaking of common sense, there's a book I recommend you read. It's called "Uncommon Sense" Probably written by a person you would loath.
His name was Thomas Paine.
It's always about the money. Here in Nashville, our mayor openly admitted that he wants a 33% increase in revenues from traffic violations. And he's got the police chief, who's a political hack and a sap anyway, sending his cops out there to collect. I wonder if they even bother writing tickets to the illegals they stop? I mean, if they don't pay the fine, they're not going to bother to arrest them anyway since it's too much trouble and won't bring in any money. I don't know that "traffic anarchy" is the result of this kind of thing, but trying to pretend that I have "respect for the law" gets tougher by the minute.
So...where do YOU draw the line? When they tell you what kind of car you HAVE to drive? That you can only drive from point A to point B? That only a certain class of people can drive?
What is is, mr lemming?
Privilege my a$$! You're a sheeple and you're full of it.
These seatbelt nazis are the types of people that think big government is always good for us.
Nope the Second Amendment is pretty clear on guns, not so for cars, or horse-drawn carriages, if you want to go back that far.
TWICE! Two times, the voters in Mass. shot down seatbelt laws, byt the legislature pushed them through anyway.
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.