Skip to comments.Seat Belt Laws Save Lives, Kill Liberties
Posted on 01/27/2003 12:21:52 PM PST by shortstop
click here to read article
If you cannot distinguish between what two (or one) persons do in their home, and what people do while operating a vehicle on a public roadway, then I have great fear for the conservative movement.
Using small words: I own my home. I don't own the road, the People (through their agent the State) do. In order to use my car on the road, I agree to the People's rules. I don't have to agree to anyone's rules to use myself.
You talk like you're the spokesman for the nanny state. The nannies that pay for everything. I got news for you, I pay the damn taxes and they're my roads too. As long as I drive w/o crashing and in a respectable manner, keep your damn jackbooted road agents the hell off my tail. Keep your airbags, your seatbelts and your medical assistance and all your concern for my health and safety.
Furthermore the Constitution doesn't grant rights, they are claiimed by Free individuals. They are retained by individuals that fight for them, regardless of the onslaught and claims of whatever group of tyrants shows up. If my fellow citizens want to be my new mommy, then they will have to join the ranks of the N. Koreans and other communitarians, or get in line with them, because I will not turn over my soverenty of will in personal matters to a committee of benevolent bozos, whether they're duly elected bozos, or not!
I agree that seatbelt laws are "violations of our freedom," but the time to confront this issue was decades ago. Let's tear up every square inch of pavement that has been publicly funded over the last 100 years, then we'll talk about getting rid of seatbelt laws.
Uhmmmmm. Not necessarily. Happened a couple of years ago. Woman in the passenger seat was dutifully wearing her seat belt. Car was T-boned from the driver's side. Seatbelt snapped her spine. Now paralysed from the ribs down. Driver (not strapped in) got a couple of broken bones and a lot of bruises but they healed. The woman's spine didn't.
Seatbelts not NECESSARILY a good idea.
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?""
Cain killed his brother Abel. The passage gives no more than Cain's attempt to weasel out of acknowledging he killed Abel. You use it as if God gives a command for the elightened of the world to run the lives of their fellows. He didn't! He gave all men a Free will and commanded them all to respect that gift as He does. What part of though shalt not steal don't you get?
Fortunately,I am up to the task.
Seatbelts, like so many government mandated devices suffer from the same limitations imposed by the curve of diminishing returns as everything else in Nature and G-d's Universe.
That is to say, under SOME circumstances, with SOME seatbelts, SOME lives will be saved and SOME injuries will be prevented.
Over time an equal and opposite number of injuries and deaths will be CAUSED by seatbelts.
My favorite illuminating example: If Teddy Kennedy had been wearing a seatbelt at Chappaquidick, he might not be alive and among us today.
Now my favorite question for all the Nanny State acoyltes among us:
If/When the almighty state determines that the best way to prevent injury in a automobile collision is for all parties to wear the equivalent of motorcycle helmets will you cheerfully strap yours on?
After all, race car drivers wear them. Think of the chiiiilllllldrun.
Best regards to all,
Pavement's a good thing, nannies aren't.
Those incapable of working,should be provided for their families and charities, or by a compassionate STATE legislature. If a state govt will not provide for the care of the indigent, they will of course starve or very nearly. Elected officials will see to it that there are provisions for the truly needy.
The problem with the cost of caring for those injured in an accident(in the case of no seat belts), or taking care of those children with parents incapable of taking care of their responsibility, is one of too much socialism, not to few laws.
It is not my responsibility to provide for children other than mine, so I can mourn the passing of those few peoples that would. I would feel sad of course, but not guilty. They can adopt their children out, put them to work(if we could change the counterproductive child labor laws), or or be so selfish(read responsible)for the deaths of their charges.
IN truth, few are in that position, and charity would take care of their needs. People that are too proud to beg, are likely not to feel guilty about begging from the govt. As a matter of fact, they see the provision of their own needs, as a governmental right.
One, I can, and wearing a condom isn't limited to one's home.
Two, I fear greatly for what used to be a Conservative movement since so many so-called conservatives seem to have forgotten anything resembling a 'live and let live' philosophy, especially when they can get the government involved.
Using small words: I own my home. I don't own the road, the People (through their agent the State) do. In order to use my car on the road, I agree to the People's rules. I don't have to agree to anyone's rules to use myself.
Cute. But in your magnificent efforts to be condenscending, you missed the entire point. (You cannot truly be condenscending if you aren't actually better than the other. Or do I need to type more slowly so because you can't read very fast? Tsk, tsk, your lips are moving again!)
If I'm not wearing my seatbelt, what effect does that have on other drivers?
I'll submit that wearing a condom would prevent more illnesses and deaths than does wearing a seatbelt.
But you are prepared to protect your rights and privacy while giving others' away.
NOWHERE can I find where Jesus or Paul advocated having the govenment enforce church rules, spiritual laws, our personal wishes, or common sense.
That's right, he did say that. If the Pharisees heed that command though, they won't have anything to do and they'll lose their self-rightous claims to boast and demand tribute.
I have to agree. Used to be that each person was responsible for being responsible....ie, you have an accident...YOUR insurance goes up...not everyone else's. Now, everyone's goes up for anyone's irresponsibility. Not right!
No, I haven't read that and don't believe it.
Who said anything like that?
That's sounds suspiciously like personal freedom and individual responsibility. We can't have that, now can we?
Personally, I have worn a seat belt when driving for the last 20 years. Now, I only wear it when I choose to (rarely). Usually only when the roads are bad, not because it's the law.
Two possible solutions. One - kill Joe off before he can procreate because he is so stupid. Or two, end the socialism and make people responsible for their own actions.
I vote for personal freedom and individual responsibility every time.
Duh... just about every politician votes (wonder why? - pandering/prostituting for VOTES!) for this kind of excess - you can't legislate morality, but you can refuse to REWARD those that do. Social (as in SOCIALISM) programs will destroy this county if the politicians don't.
My kingdom for an honest poitician!
My daughter's mother-in-law is a retired nurse and she constantly told our grandkidsNOT to buckle up.
She said that she had seen too many severe injuries CAUSED by seat belts. (she fakes her own) Last year, our oldest granddaughter was riding in a car with three other girls.
There was an accident.
She was the only one of the four belted and the only one who wound up hospitalized, with a broken pelvis, from the seatbelt.
I personally know six people who would not have been here today IF they had been buckled in.
Why not? We are forced to pay for gooberment skool'n, publik housing, and so on. What makes you think you are not going to be made to pay, regardless? Lower rates, hah! What's next, honest lawyers?
Hawaii has the same - we figured it was ensure that there'd be more organ donors since it's so hard to get donor organs here in time with the long flight.
Dollars to donuts, the insurance companies were there first, demanding the state pass laws saying everyone must buy their products. That the government has, like a organized crime family, taken over the insurance industry, well...that's what happpes when you make a deal with the devil.
I don't have the history, but I don't have so much respect for insurance companies as to think it's likely. What seems more realistic to me is that the trial lawyers started making realistic actuarial estimation of a potential loss such a crapshoot that the insurance companies ended up running to the nanny state for protection.
Example...In Texas we have seatbelt laws, but you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Getting pulled over on a motorcycle for speeding without a helmet will only get you a ticket for speeding. Get pulled over in a car (which if you haven't noticed is by far much safer than a motorcyle)for not wearing a seatbelt and you can bet the cost will be more than the speeding ticket.
IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY !!!! LIVES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT !!!!
"If you value your freedom to drive with no seatbelt more than the privilege to use tax-funded roads then you can always drive up and down your driveway and walk to the store."
The legislature has a duty in a Free society to refrain from dictating personal choices that are of no consequence regarding the safety and smooth flow of traffic of, and for, other drivers, pedestrians, or property on the highways. Notice I attached the the conditional, Free. That conditional places a definite bound on what the legislature can and can not do. When the legislature operates beyond the bounds of rights protection and fails to nourish and promote Freedom, it becomes a tyrannical body.
Seatbelt laws happen to be pure tyranny. They are most often justified to lower the cost of forced health programs by the state and preferential treatment for particular commercial operations. Those programs are another tyrannical act, because they don't exist without the force of government action and their sole purpose has nothing to do with rights protection, but are simply bogus charity schemes. Schemes that are used by autoritarian socialists to maintain economic benefit and power. It's nothing more than theft and a bribery for votes scheme.
"Likewise, your notion of what your obligations are while driving on public roads is a fantasy or a fraud."
My obligations while driving on the road are to follow the traffic laws, respect others rights and refrain from crashing, period. I have no obligation to wear a seatbelt. If you think Freedom is fantasy, or fraud, you are welcome to, but I do not. Freedom is a gift from God and those others that respect that gift.
"In your world, public roads are evidence of the nanny state and state troopers are equivalent to jack-booted thugs.
According to you. The fact is that public roads exist for transportation purposes, that's it. The laws that govern the use of those roads are restricted, in a Free society to those laws that promote the Free flow of traffic and protect individual rights. There is no justification to impose personal safety rules, such as air bag and seatbelt mandates.
"I am glad you are not in the legislature."
Your in the company of all the other authoritarians that hold Freedom in contempt.
"America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered"
It's a communitarian thing. It promotes cost effective population control, lowers health care bills and other various and sundry socialist expenditures. For a person that cares so little about individual rights, such as the sovereignty of will that is an essence of human life, why would it concern you? Do you want them as subjects to belt up and impose dictates, mandates and prohibitions, or to live as Free individuals to pursue their own interests, make their own decision and determine their own destiny?
The 9th clearly tells us that there are other rights NOT listed and that those rights are every bit as important as those that are listed.
Some of the wisest founders hesitated on the BoR because they knew that sometime down the road boneheads would claim that the listed, enumerated rights were the only ones that existed, that if it wasn't in the Consitution or amendments then that right didn't exist.
Boneheads is my word, not theirs, and there are plenty of them on FR.
To say that everything else not mentioned can be claimed to be a right by virtue of the 9th amendment is funny - such thinking is where we get the idiotic notion that there is a "right" to be free from insensitive language, etc. (insert any other PC crapola "right").
It isn't funny, it is so stupid that only a small group of people could even fathom that idea. I would have never thought of it had it not been for you! Congratulations, you are in a small group of people.
In your opinion, are there rights not listed that are retained by the people? If not why, if so, what might some be?
And we have our friendly neighborhood attorneys to thank for them.
Until tort reform becomes a reality, the number of laws will continue to increase.
I would be for this idea if I had confidence in the gov'ts ability to determine what is unhealthy food. Unfortunately the Gov't has told us for 40 years that fat is bad and carbs are good and the result is that America is fatter than it ever has been. They are only now beginning to realize and admit that the reverse is true, but they still haven't changed the pyramid. And it's actually the American Medical Society more than the Gov't that's at fault, since Gov't has relied on them.
In seat belts and helmets I have confidence with the Gov'ts ability to determine safety.
"Those incapable of working,should be provided for their families and charities, or by a compassionate STATE legislature"
You admit the need for a public dole, so now we are back to the everyday problem of how to determine the unwilling from the incapable. And I'm back to paying for Joe's family, unless we enforce the safety laws to protect me and Joe from Joe's stupidity.
"It is not my responsibility to provide for children other than mine, so I can mourn the passing of those few peoples that would. I would feel sad of course, but not guilty."
That contradicts the comments above about a STATE legislature taking care of them. Perhaps the best answer is to leave assistance to charities. But in fact, charities remain the assistance of last resort when gov't programs stop.
I agree with the comment that people start to see gov't entitlements as a right instead of charity. However, I don't think it's fair to leave every societal problem to the charitable minded. There is a cost to everyone if you don't deal with the problem. Therefore it's in everybody's interest to deal with the problem and everyone should pay.
And if sometimes that means society decides to curtail individual freedom and enforce safety laws, so be it. And yes, it can swing too far. Gov't has an unending appetite and seeks to be ever more intrusive to justify more and more bureaucrat jobs. There has to be a balance. And the only way I know to maintain some semblance of balance is in a republic or democracy, where a public outcry can occur if things get too far out of whack.
There is a cost if you do not deal with the problems. If there were no uncertainties in the system, I would agree with you about making people responsible for their own actions. But everything from weather to fundamental characteristics of free markets such as the fact that competition tends to drive profits to zero or below before industry rationalization occurs means that people occasionally get down on their luck.
It's why the founding fathers put things like bankruptcy codes in place, which arguably is a form of socialism, with the state canceling perfectly legal contracts.
We could kill the stupid people, as long as I get to decide who is stupid.
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..
Is the right to run for office an enumerated right? Do I have the right to read a Harry Potter books in my house? Do I have the right to drink alcohol until I puke?
Not everything that we have rights to do are desirable, let alone healthy. But they are still our perogative (right to choose).
AND it's about tyranny.
But there are, and always will be uncertainties. So what? When you realize and accept the consequences of your actions rather than reach out to the nanny state when things get tough, the country will be better off. What circumstance in your life is so dire that gives you the right to go to government (an agency of force) to get them to come to me (to put a gun to my head) to pay for your misfortune? The answer - THERE IS NONE. Personal charity if admirable. Help that is extorted by government force is not.
" But everything from weather to fundamental characteristics of free markets such as the fact that competition tends to drive profits to zero or below..."
WHAT? Since when does competition make business unprofitable? The failed businesses that I have seen have failed because of internal problems, not the store down the street or across town. In just one small example, if your premise was true, car dealers would locate as far from each other as possible. But they don't. They tend to cluster because the competition tends to make them stronger.
"It's why the founding fathers put things like bankruptcy codes in place, which arguably is a form of socialism, with the state canceling perfectly legal contracts."
Bankruptcy was for extreme cases. People now treat it a divine right for anyone who runs up their charge cards. Remember, if the government gave you the 'right', it is not a right, it's a privilege.
"We could kill the stupid people, as long as I get to decide who is stupid."
Sorry, I already have that job. LOL
Could you please apply this theory to seatbelt use?
How exactly will I be affected if someone else doesn't wear their seatbelt, and the state doesn't pay their resulting medical bills?
Even if the state doesn't pay their medical bills or provide any other assistance to the person not wearing their seatbelt you will be affected.
Some percent of the adults driving who are killed or disabled in this manner are going to leave behind kids who are emotionally scarred because of the loss of a parent. These kids become the so called "at risk" kids because of the double whammy that not only have they loss a parent, but they effectively lose both because the load on the other parent is now so heavily increased. If not dealt with, the "at risk" kids tend to turn to crime.
And that crime will cost you. Either they will steal your stuff, a direct cost. Or you will pay taxes to have them locked up in the penn., or you will pay for security or additional cops.
That guy won't pay his last utility bill (so the utility company increases their rate to all their customers including you), he can't pay his mortgage, so the bank raises the interest rates they charge all new customers, he can't pay anything and every business will have to build in a small cushion and charge you, so that they can pay for Joe when Joe crashes without a seatbelt.
Your inattention to provide for the common welfare in the beginning will come home to roost in more ways than you can imagine.
By the way, suppose you are robbed and they take you to the emergency room. Your ID is stolen, so the hospital refuses to aid you because you can't prove your ability to pay them. Is that really the kind of world you want?
There are costs to not doing anything. They range from health concerns to increases in crime. When the majority of the population agrees that it is in the best interest of all to have a safety net, then we collectively have that right. And if you don't like it, your choices are to try to change it or get out.
What makes you think that you have an unalienable right to be government free? They are sticking the same gun to my head that they are sticking to yours. The system is fair.
Since when does competition make business unprofitable?
Competition does not always make businesses unprofitable. But it is common that competition will drive the profits down to zero or below in the shortterm until enough business fail and industry rationalization occurs. This is basic macroeconomics.
Free enterprise is still the best system for overall management, but you need to realize that you can do everything right and well and can still be driven into bankruptcy by circumstances beyond your control. Thomas Jefferson filed bankruptcy twice before being elected president.
It's not the competition that makes car dealers locate close to each other, it's the marketing location. The odds of having their cars seen are greater if they are close to other lots.
"Bankruptcy was for extreme cases. People now treat it a divine right "
Some people do. And I think there should be a system to track people who file every 7 years like clockwork. On the other hand, as someone who started a business a year ago, I appreciate the fact that the bankruptcy laws are there.
They have allowed me a chance to get out of the corporate slavery and take risks, that I wouldn't have, if bankruptcy laws didn't exist. Ultimately that increased risk taking is good for the economy. See Benjamin Franklin's comments on the value of low interest rates to the overall economy.
If your theory were followed to its logical conclusion, there would be literally no human activity that would go unregulated. Every single thing we do entails some personal risk, from crossing the street to cooking dinner.
Where would this regulation end? Theoretically it could go on forever, until people were fed only gruel (you might choke on solid food!) and confined to padded rooms and strait jackets (most accidents happen in the home!), released only long enough to complete jobs that were justified by a risk/benefit analysis of be of sufficient benefit to others.
You also assume that you have some right to the benefits of others existence and their work. You have no such right. People are not cattle whose liberty depends on how much they benefit others. If I die today in a parachuting accident, or even decide to take my own life (it is mine after all) and that causes you to miss out on something I might have done to benefit you, well, Tough.
Your theory is that of slavery. Not slavery to an individual, but slavery to everyone. I am no man's slave. If you benefit from my wellness, consider yourself lucky. You have no right to the least of the fruit of my labors, unless we agree to it beforehand. If my demise causes some creditor of mine a loss, that's simply the cost of doing business in a free society. The free market system, through the 'Invisible Hand' will handle that.
Freedom is not free. It costs more than lives spent on a battlefield or trillions of dollars spent on 'defense'. Freedom is not neat or orderly. How much of a mess do wars we supposedly fight for freedom make? All those costs are merely a minor portion of liberty's cost. The consequences of my right to be as reckless with myself as I wish, so long as your rights are not violated are part of that cost.
suppose you are robbed and they take you to the emergency room. Your ID is stolen, so the hospital refuses to aid you because you can't prove your ability to pay them. Is that really the kind of world you want?
I can solve that problem real easy: In exchange for treatment in that case you agree to be photographed and leave a thumbprint with the hospital (now your creditor) in lieu of conventional ID. In the event that you don't pay, your thumbprint and photo are given to the police as evidence of breach of contract. If your thumbprint is not on record and you cannot be found and prosecuted, your picture and thumbprint are shared with other hospitals much in the way casinos share information on undesirables, and you can be assured you will not steal treatment in the future. The cost of this system and losses from those that don't pay are offset by an additional fee on those customers who use the system.
Nearly every problem such as this can be solved with voluntary solutions. All it takes is thought and effort.
There has to be a balance. You only deal with the really big factors. Seatbelts or lack thereof was a big factor in loss of life and injury. Look at the exemptions the life insurance companies put in their contracts. They only exclude a handful of activities, usually flying and a few others. But it's the most common losses. That's exactly what the seatbelt law addresses, a very common loss.
You also assume that you have some right to the benefits of others existence and their work.
I don't or show me how, except to the extent that you might leave behind problems for the rest of us to deal with such as children.
If my demise causes some creditor of mine a loss, that's simply the cost of doing business in a free society. The free market system, through the 'Invisible Hand' will handle that.
"simply the cost of doing business"... a cost that is avoided by requiring safety laws. The balance of cost vs personal liberty is decided upon by our democratically elected republic. You benefit from the cost savings, even though you don't like the law.
The free market system would price that in by driving up the cost of credit to all. The market would be pricing in a large and unneccessary cost. And the market can not adequately price in factors like the cost to society of kids left behind or any public assistance. Thus the need for the law.
The consequences of my right to be as reckless with myself as I wish, so long as your rights are not violated are part of that cost.
but that's really the issue isn't it. Whether your recklessness violates my rights. As long as there is public assistance (which I think some is necessary) and as long as you can leave children behind, then I maintain you do violate my rights by your recklessness.
"In the event that you don't pay, your thumbprint and photo are given to the police as evidence of breach of contract."...
So now I and others have to pay for police and investigators to track you down."
The cost of this system and losses from those that don't pay are offset by an additional fee on those customers who use the system.
So now I and others have to pay because you are a deadbeat. The only difference is in your system all users of medical care have to pay extra, in mine the public as a whole has to pay extra. It's just a different set of people who are getting the gun to their head.