Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Click it or ticket
townhall ^ | 5/24/06 | Walter WIlliams

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 4a; 4thamendment; clickitorticket; donutwatch; fourthamendment; governmentabuse; govwatch; libertarians; mdm; policeabuse; seatbelt; seatbelts; walterwilliams
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 661-670 next last
To: dfwgator
You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

"Sucking up and actually believing the government BS" award of the day.

61 posted on 05/31/2006 10:13:49 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

were there horses instead of engines?


62 posted on 05/31/2006 10:14:41 AM PDT by chrispycsuf (our troops need our support now more than ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf

The most basic law?? Are you insane or just been locked up for a few years?


63 posted on 05/31/2006 10:14:44 AM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You absolutely do have the right to drive.

So even if you are blind? Fail a driver's exam?


Nice diversion, but it is understood that the right is for those who are demonstrably capable of exercising it. If someone can get adequate private insurance without having taken a driving exam, I am fine with that. Exams and certification should be in the hands of insurance companies, not the government.

The only government restriction I see needed for the right to drive is to prominently post proof of prepaid liability insurance of an amount adequate to compensate others (not the BS minimums that most states have), maybe $250k, or maybe $1m.
64 posted on 05/31/2006 10:15:36 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
ads boldly, specifically and emphatically stated that if Florida voters approved this new law, no one would ever be "stopped" for non-use of seat belts.

yes - same lie told here - was made from secondary to primary law in two years.

65 posted on 05/31/2006 10:15:44 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Where mandated seat belt wear is concerned it's my observation (as someone who goes back before seat belts) that incrementalism rules. When seat belts first came about it was recommended that you wear them when operating a vehicle. Time went by and some states began mandating that you wear them ... to the extent that if stopped for some other reason (speeding for instance) and not wearing your seat belt an additional fine (add on) could be levied. This quickly spread to most other states. Recently laws have been passed that not wearing a seat belt is a stand alone offense ... if observed not wearing one while operating a vehicle you can be pulled over and cited. The nanny state prevails ...
66 posted on 05/31/2006 10:16:21 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
So even if you are blind? Fail a driver's exam?

Of course.

It's probably inadvisable if you're blind, though.

Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege

67 posted on 05/31/2006 10:16:25 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

>>That's a good pro-drug-use argument. <<

No, it's a good drug legalization argument. And even then, only if it does not harm others for whom you are not responsible. You know, like they do with drunk driving laws.

And I am completely for drug legalization, even though I think drug use is incredibly stupid.

But you see, in a FREE society, that is not my call to make. Nor is it yours.


68 posted on 05/31/2006 10:16:42 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf
so is it alright to smoke medical marijuana, crack cocaine, crystal meth...it doesnt harm others if i do it in my home

Now you're starting to get it. Too bad a freedom endorsing thought like that will scare you and you will back away from it.

69 posted on 05/31/2006 10:17:16 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Bait and switch is alive and well.


70 posted on 05/31/2006 10:17:31 AM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

i hope "uncommon sense" was meant as sarcasm because i have read "commom sense" as well as mill's "on liberty" as well as works by plato, aristotle and others...even marx...its good to look at other government ideas and draw from that....and not just yell about socialism bringing down the man


71 posted on 05/31/2006 10:17:37 AM PDT by chrispycsuf (our troops need our support now more than ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Let's compare the societal costs imposed by seatbeltless driving, and, say...illegal immigration,

Why?

"Societal costs" are not the yardstick by which a free people decide if rights are to be suspended.

72 posted on 05/31/2006 10:17:37 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
That's a good pro-drug-use argument

As long as you don't tie socialized medicine to it it is. Take your drugs, but if you OD and can't pay for the emergency care then please don't die where your corpse will smell up anything.

73 posted on 05/31/2006 10:18:08 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Nothing about the government makes me madder on a daily basis than seat belt laws.


74 posted on 05/31/2006 10:18:35 AM PDT by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Way back in 1985 they were having one of these campaigns out in California (now I wear the belt, I just don't always 'get it clicked immediately).

So I come around this turn to enter Rt 280 going north at the Crystal Springs Rd entry, and there is highway patrol sitting there facing me in the median. As soon as I pass by him but before he can see movement in my mirror, I reach over with smooth motion and engage shoulder harness. Now I look in the rear view mirror, and the cop has his car light up like Dale Earnhardt doing a triple-donut burnout coming out after me, he gets up to 100 mph coming up on me. The cop comes right up on me then he shoots forward, then on each side etc, he is all over the place around me, but I am playing fat dumb and stupid going along.

The guy stayed on me all the way to Daly City. He let the macho ego take over and what he did was far more reckless than my neglect to engage that harness ever was. If it was not a cop I would have though he was trying to run me off the road, maybe he was.

Wolf
75 posted on 05/31/2006 10:18:40 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
Nail meet head.

You can apply the same thing to smoking laws, gun laws, private property laws, et al.

The frog is boiling.

76 posted on 05/31/2006 10:18:51 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

"Each of us owns himself,"

What a radical notion. It'd never fly around here, though.


77 posted on 05/31/2006 10:19:47 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, and to keep that privilege there are rules to follow.

I see the indoctrination really took with you. Congratulations, comrade.

78 posted on 05/31/2006 10:19:48 AM PDT by Glenn (Annoy a BushBot...Think for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
I've noticed that as well. It is curious.

They come out of the woodwork on topics like this. I think they spend the rest of their time gushing at the day in the life of GWB thread.

79 posted on 05/31/2006 10:20:04 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chrispycsuf

"thats complete stupidity"

Why? And most of the cars I logged the miles in didn't even have seat belts (I'm old).

>>If this argument were held true, then assisted suicide should be allowed, but i think only oregon is stupid enough to allow that.<<

This is twice now you have used analogies of things that ALWAYS end in death - one evem intentional - to make your point about a thing that virtually NEVER ends in death. You need to leave analogies to the pros. ;)


80 posted on 05/31/2006 10:20:41 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 661-670 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson