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

Skip to comments.

Seat Belt Laws Save Lives, Kill Liberties
boblonsberry.com ^ | 1/27/03 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 01/27/2003 12:21:52 PM PST by shortstop

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
To: shortstop
Little Billy is 36 and as a good responsible member of society becomes offended if any liberty is taken away from him.

Little Billy does not wear a seatbelt while he is driving to show those State officials that they can't take away his liberty.

Little Billy is in a car wreck, and instead of being restrained by his seatbelt, he suffers 5 broken ribs and a series of lacerations along his face and neck.

Little Billy is taken to the emergancy room and is in surgery for 4 hours.

Little Billy is then hospitilized for 3 more days and the released.

Little Billy is homebound for another week as he is unable to go into the office.

It seems that Little Billy was broadsided by a City Utilities truck and Little Billy's sedan was forced into a light pole.

Little Billy's injuries and expenses, including the time off of work, are being paid for by the city's insurance since it was the city's driver who was at fault.

Little Billy, who wanted to maintain his liberty, costs the city and it's insurance company close to $300,000 in the settlement.

Who pays that cost? Well, the city pays a portion of it, plus the city's insurance premiums go up. That means that taxpayers pay a portion of Billy's settlement. That means that other people seeking insurance will pay, with their premiums, a portion of Billy's settlement.

Let's say that it wasn't a law, then Billy's lawyers could suggest suing the State for not making seat belts mandantory thus saving Billy injury and loss of work. Sadly, it is a law, thus closing off that avenue of cash for litagators.

But, hey, a LIBERTY (not even a "right") is worth thousands of lives a year and millions of dollars in taxpayer money, right?

51 posted on 01/27/2003 1:23:01 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
" Ever notice how the word "community" forms the core of the word "communism?"

I guess I had noticed that before, but it was a long time ago. Now that you mention it though, it makes sense why that has become one of the most hated words on my list of "fingernails on the chalkboard" buzz words. Do you ever get the feeling that more and more people are seeming to think that communism is a good idea?

52 posted on 01/27/2003 1:23:19 PM PST by sweetliberty (Go Al, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Seatbelts are velvet chains that same way license plates and driver's licenses and speed limits and traffic lights and all other trafic laws are.

You want the privilege to drive your automobile on paved roads to traverse the town, county or country? Then abide the laws passed by your duly elected brethren.

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.
53 posted on 01/27/2003 1:25:58 PM PST by Notwithstanding (America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It is socialism, Sir, and you are correct.

Ever notice how many Freepers are not interested in fighting this creeping socialism?

54 posted on 01/27/2003 1:27:36 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"The real problem is that we haven't allowed insurance companies to discriminate in their pricing.?

I agree with that premise but it goes deeper. Not only would the insurance company have to be able to discriminate in their pricing but the insurance would have to be sufficient to keep Joe off of the public dole.

Example1

Joe Cyclist is going to tell Cycle Insurance he is going to wear his helmet. Cycle Insurance has no way of knowing Joe is violating his agreement until he has a wreck and the officer documents Joe didn't have his helmet on.

Now Cycle Insurance refuses to pay, since Joe was outside of his agreement with them. Joe has massive head injuries and guess who pays. You and me, because Joe is now on the public dole.

Example II-- Joe Cyclist was wearing his helmet but still has massive injuries. Cycle Insurance pays, but Joe ends up on the public dole anyway because the insurance wasn't sufficient. Once again, I'm paying for Joe.

Example III -- Insurance can now discriminate and minimum requirements for Insurance are sufficient so that no matter what Medical condition Joe ends up in as a result of his cycling, Joe will never be on the public dole.

Only problem is Joe can't afford Cycle Insurance. Neither can anyone else. For that matter, few people can now afford cars because we've applied the same principle to car insurance. The economy is reduced to a fraction of what it was and everyone loses.

System 1 - A system with Laws designed to enforce safety habits, minimal insurance requirements and a public safety net or

System 2 - A system with no safety laws, but minimum Insurance requirements sufficient to protect society from Joe's stupidity.

Or would you prefer...

System 3 - No safety laws, no insurance requirements, no public safety net, hospitals aren't required to treat anyone who can't pay. Joe can't get medical care, because of no insurance and dies. Joe's wife commits suicide because of the pressure of raising three kids by herself.

Joe's three kids end up on the street because there are no orphanages any more since we did away with the public safety net. The three kids take to crime causing property insurance to go up as well as the prison population and associated law enforcement and once again I'm paying for Joe's stupidity.

55 posted on 01/27/2003 1:30:37 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Interesting choice of words. Ever notice how the word "community" forms the core of the word "communism?"

The core of both of those words is "commune", to be in harmony with others. Communism hardly lives up to its name, but community often does.

As I have stated before, the defining commonality of many libertarians is their disdain and contempt for any society (yes socialism uses the same base word). There is a simple line from a famous piece of writing that I think can determine the difference between a "conservative" and a "libertarian":

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"

"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Most libertarians would answer "no".

56 posted on 01/27/2003 1:32:56 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"because you want to drive on the highway the community has funded, you have to play by the community rules."

I recall an accident whereby a woman struck the railing of an overpass, and was thrown out of her car onto the road BELOW. Fortunately, now one else was injured. Others might have been killed or seriously injured becaused this woman was not wearing her seatbelt. Both roads were closed for hours, leading to the possibility of other accidents, or at the very least, traffic congestion for all others that use the roads.

I agree with you. If we are going to share the same roads, paid for by the community, we have to abide by rules that make them safe for all of us.
57 posted on 01/27/2003 1:33:45 PM PST by OldBlondBabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: shortstop
Dumbass article!
59 posted on 01/27/2003 1:36:35 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
"and must set limits"? Oh really? I agree with the "may" but why "must"? The "state" is not a monlithic entity, it is the people. [We're talking theory here, not reality]. So in your opinion, how does wearing a seat belt relate to the use of the roads? It has nothing to do with road safety: doesn't regulate speed, doesn't stop reckless endangerment of others. All it does is allow the state into the vehicle. The law changes the relationship with the state from regulating the driver's behavior vis a vis other drivers; instead it becomes paternalistic insisting that only the state can determine what is acceptable. That does not apply to other situations in driving that I can think of.
60 posted on 01/27/2003 1:37:18 PM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Billy's insurance company tells him that it doesn't cover accidents if he doesn't wear a seatbelt. Then:

A. Billy chooses to pay a higher premium to his insurance company to be assigned to a higher risk insurance pool with other people who choose to not wear seatbelts. City's truck hits Billy, Billy is covered. Nobody's insurance rates go up except those in the high risk insurance pool, who chose to share additional risk.

B. Billy chooses to not pay the higher premium. Then, in violation of his insurance contract, Billy chooses to not wear his seatbelt. City's truck hits Billy. Billy can't pay his bills and is SOL. Bleeding heart liberals socialists are beside themselves with remorse at poor (and stupid) Billy's predicament, but can't bring themselves to donate their own money for his hospital stay. And one of them says, "Why, thereottabealaw..." The rest is history.

61 posted on 01/27/2003 1:38:13 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'll take System 3.
62 posted on 01/27/2003 1:40:19 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
That's what the military instituted for it's members back in the early 80's. If you, or a dependant, was injured or killed in an auto accident and you were not wearing a seatbelt, then you forfeit all expenses that would normally be paid by the military.

Needless to say, my Father was beyond any measure of strictness when it came to our family wearing seatbelts. That "loss of liberty" hasn't harmed me at all, and saved the military millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.

63 posted on 01/27/2003 1:42:48 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
That "loss of liberty"

What loss of liberty? The only thing I saw in your story is personal responsibility.

64 posted on 01/27/2003 1:46:18 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
difference between a "conservative" and a "libertarian"</ i>

That nails it. I've been shocked a few times by the total selfishness and hatred of government that gets espoused in the name of "liberty".

Without someone to defined and enforce the rules, nobody gets to play the game, including libertarians.

65 posted on 01/27/2003 1:47:38 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
It costs you money for the obese to eat at Mickey Ds, are you soon going to insist on mandatory calorie counters for those choosing to eat fast food? It costs massive amounts to provide food stamps, welfare, education, and health for the children of those incapable or too lazy to work. We should mandate chastity belts for all females, not married.
66 posted on 01/27/2003 1:50:44 PM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
"Am I my brother's keeper?" Most libertarians would answer "no".

Voluntarily helping another, ie charity, is entirely compatible with libertarianism. If you ask us "Are you your brother's keeper?" We say, "Yes, when we want to be."

If we are denied that choice, the question is not "Are you your brother's keeper?". It becomes "Are you your brother's slave?"

67 posted on 01/27/2003 1:51:35 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
But that's not what you will hear from others on this site. They want their cake and the ability to eat it also. They want to not be forced to wear seatbelts, but not have any more consequences established for them.

Most "libertarians" are out for themselves, and themselves alone. Any restriction placed upon them is an affront to their "liberty", and any additional consequence placed upon them is "government interference".

The law is set in place, the consequence is known. This is unacceptable for those that disdain society and hold any government in contempt. It is stealing from them that which they do not own, and keeping from their grasp that which they have not earned.

68 posted on 01/27/2003 1:52:57 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
"I'll take System 3.

I'm not surprised that you would. But did you notice I'm still paying for Joe's stupidity. I don't know whether I'm paying more or less, but I'm paying regardless of which laws or no laws.

69 posted on 01/27/2003 1:54:45 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Look around at those posters who are most ardently "libertarian". They make Scrooge from a Chrismas Carol look like Mother Theresa when it comes to charity. No, sadly, most libertarians wrap themselves in the ideals of liberty and freedom to hide their selfish and anti-social views of life and fellow man.
70 posted on 01/27/2003 1:54:48 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: shortstop; stainlessbanner; Constitution Day; Howlin; mykdsmom; azhenfud; 4ConservativeJustices
Seatbelt laws aren’t about seatbelts. They are about law, and the proper role of law. And whether or not you wear a seatbelt is your business. It is not the government’s business. You are free to be stupid, and the government has no right to outlaw stupidity.

Giddy Dolt freedom grabbing bump!!! What about airbags? Giddy pushed those through as well

71 posted on 01/27/2003 1:57:36 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Voluntarily helping another, ie charity, is entirely compatible with libertarianism. If you ask us "Are you your brother's keeper?" We say, "Yes, when we want to be."

There is an argument for this. If the public didn't provide a safety net that job would fall to churches and civic organizations. Churches would then be able to minister to the soul while they are providing whatever assistance is needed. Churches would rise back to prominance and only churches filled with people who really care, who are willing to give would flourish.

In that respect it could make for a much better society. Of course, I wonder how many of the libertarians would suddenly see value in the public dole if the alternative was turning to the church.

72 posted on 01/27/2003 2:00:31 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Get involved and change the law - stop whining about a right that does not exist under our current Constitution.

Grrrrr....

It gripes me to no end when people view the Constitutionand the Bill of Rights as the only rights citizens have and if it ain't there, then the right does not exist.

The Constitution, specifically the 9th amendment, contradicts this position.

In short, YOUR arguments run counter to the Constitution which limit goverment, not citizens' rights and liberties.

73 posted on 01/27/2003 2:00:32 PM PST by Eagle Eye (And you shall know the STATE and the STATE shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Get involved and change the law - stop whining about a right that does not exist under our current Constitution.

Grrrrr....

It gripes me to no end when people view the Constitutionand the Bill of Rights as the only rights citizens have and if it ain't there, then the right does not exist.

The Constitution, specifically the 9th amendment, contradicts this position.

In short, YOUR arguments run counter to the Constitution which limit goverment, not citizens' rights and liberties.

74 posted on 01/27/2003 2:00:32 PM PST by Eagle Eye (And you shall know the STATE and the STATE shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Sorry, but requiring people to wear seatbelts is becoming a revenue enhancing option for the states, all in the guise of "safety".

In New Jersey, the legislature orginally instituted a seatbelt law making the non-compliance a secondary violation, ie: if you were stopped for a moving violation and were not wearing your seatbelt you could also be ticketed for it. Of course, that was what we were told would be the extent of the law when it was originally proposed.

Lo and behold, a few years later and the seatbelt law is changed to a primary offense; you can now be stopped for not wearing your belt. So what are the unintended consequences? A couple of months ago, a State Trooper assigned to observe and ticket vehicles for seatbelt conpliance at a toolbooth on the NJ Turnpike was killed. As much as I feel sorry for the trooper and his family, it is a direct result of the State's need for income from seat belt violations that caused his death.

And in case you're wondering, I always wear mine.

75 posted on 01/27/2003 2:01:13 PM PST by par4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
But that's not what you will hear from others on this site. They want their cake and the ability to eat it also. They want to not be forced to wear seatbelts, but not have any more consequences established for them.

I've frequented seat belt threads here for years, and I've never seen anyone take that position. But if you ever do find such an individual, send 'em my way and I'll set 'em strait.

Most "libertarians" are out for themselves, and themselves alone.

Some of us are charitable. Please see post #67.

Any restriction placed upon them is an affront to their "liberty", and any additional consequence placed upon them is "government interference".

That's not true. You are confusing us with anarchists. We don't have any problem with laws that are for the defense of rights.

It is stealing from them that which they do not own, and keeping from their grasp that which they have not earned

Seeing as how we're on a seatbelt thread, I couldn't think of a better way to describe those who would spend my liberty through seatbelt laws to pay for their own responsibility to either wear a seatbelt or purchase sufficient insurance.

76 posted on 01/27/2003 2:03:02 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
What do you think of anti-nudity laws?

Are they a good idea, or a bad idea?
You know the ones I mean. They vary from state to state, but they’re basically alike. If you’re outside, and you don’t have your clothes on, you can get a ticket.
You’ve heard the sob stories. They roll out some state trooper, or a paramedic, and have him tell you a heartbreaking story about how many crowd scenes he’s been to, and how it breaks his heart to see the shocked people, and how clothing laws are the only hope we have.
And we see how much the state loves us, passing laws to protect us, shielding us from our own stupidity.
And we’re grateful.
We see clothing requirement laws as a sign of social progress, as proof we’re an enlightened society.
But are we right?
Are anti-nudity laws a good idea?
The answer to that, surprisingly, has nothing to do with clothing.
Because there’s no question about that. If you don’t wear clothing outside, you are an idiot. The benefit and protection that come from wearing clothes cannot be denied.
Put on your clothes. Don’t go outside until you have, and until everyone else with you has as well.
But that’s not the point.
Anti-nudity laws aren’t about seatbelts, they are about freedom. And the role of government.
The question isn’t, “Should you wear clothes?” It is, “Can government force you to wear clothes?’
And, in spite of what the state legislatures have done, the answer to the second question, in America, is clear. The answer is, “No.”
We are a free people. Our government, as envisioned in our founding documents, is small and weak. It is not meant to make every decision or to legislate in every area. It is not meant to run our lives.
And yet we have come to let it.
Piece by piece, inch by inch, American freedom has dwindled and dwindled.
We are the victims of tyranny in the name of compassion.
Slavery in the guise of protection.
Each benefit of government has come at the cost of a corresponding liberty.
We are safer, but we are less free.
And we have been robbed.
Because freedom is better than safety. Liberty more important than life, and self-reliance of greater worth than governmental paternalism.
We are a nation built on the belief that all power resides with the people. Government can only exercise the power it has been granted by the people. In America, the power of government was meant to be severely limited. In America, the government is to be the servant, not the master. In America, people are believed to be the best off when they are the most free, when they run their own lives and make their own decisions.
But our government treats us like children. It takes our liberty from us with hardly a second thought. It expands its power over us without restraint. It mandates by force of law in matters that are and should be entirely personal and private.
Like wearing clothing.
Sure, the government says it is acting for our best good.
But, shouldn’t we decide as free individuals what is in our best good?
Doesn’t government’s desire to protect us from harm unavoidably separate us from God-given liberty?
Of course it does.
And yet we have taken it like sheep.
We have thanked and re-elected those legislators who have orchestrated our bondage. We have cooperated with the squandering of our national birthright. What others fought and died for, we have flushed down the toilet. Because we haven’t been smart enough to remember what this country is all about.
Freedom.
And every policy or decision of the government must pass a simple test: Does it diminish our individual liberty?
If it does, it must not be allowed. If it does, it is inherently unconstitutional. If it does, it is dangerously and unacceptably un-American.
We must be able to distinguish between what counts and what does not. We must not be confused by irrelevance. Like those sob stories the cops and insurance people tell about what happens when people go naked in public.
They are beside the point.
Anti-nudity laws aren’t about clothes.
They are about law, and the proper role of law.
And whether or not you wear clothing in public is your business. It is not the government’s business. You are free to be stupid, and the government has no right to outlaw stupidity.
Anti-nudity laws are velvet chains. We’re told they are for our own good, but they are nothing more than government oppression. They are Big Brother pretending to be our mommy.
And one more example of how we have come to accept what earlier generations of Americans would have fought to the death to resist.

77 posted on 01/27/2003 2:04:36 PM PST by dark_lord (a voice crying in the wilderness...rome is burning, burning, burning...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Look around at those posters who are most ardently "libertarian". They make Scrooge from a Chrismas Carol look like Mother Theresa when it comes to charity.

Wow! You know what posters on FR do for charity, simply by reading their posts? That's a neat trick!

78 posted on 01/27/2003 2:05:58 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
But, hey, a LIBERTY (not even a "right") is worth thousands of lives a year and millions of dollars in taxpayer money, right?

There is a price to pay for liberty or had you not heard? There's a whole generation that fought in Europe and the Pacific to quell totalitarianism and fascism and to preserve liberty. Or had you not heard?

Some of us advocate maximum rights and liberties for he maximum amount of people. And others, like you, don't.

79 posted on 01/27/2003 2:07:24 PM PST by Eagle Eye (And you shall know the STATE and the STATE shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; freeeee
Look around at those posters who are most ardently "libertarian". They make Scrooge from a Chrismas Carol look like Mother Theresa when it comes to charity. No, sadly, most libertarians wrap themselves in the ideals of liberty and freedom to hide their selfish and anti-social views of life and fellow man.

The rantings of a liberal statist posing as a conservative.

80 posted on 01/27/2003 2:10:05 PM PST by Eagle Eye (And you shall know the STATE and the STATE shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Maggots ate my brain
By the way, if the Founding Fathers were so committed to personal freedom, why didn't they eliminate slavery?

Many, if not most, of them did want to eliminate slavery. Before we could free the slaves we needed to free the 'free' people from the king of england> many of the delegates who were there during the drafting of the DoI felt that some colonists would rather fight with the British rather than give up their slaves and thought it would be easier to eventually solve that issue under a new American government rather than under British rule Anyway i"m having trouble with my keyboard note the lack of puncuation marks >>> so cut and paste the url below and read the thread it"s about Jefferson"s Rough Draft of the DoI >>>> You"ll notice he did mention freeing the slaves in that draft >>>> again sorry about the terrible formatting in my post >>>>>>>>>>

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387e1107062c.htm

81 posted on 01/27/2003 2:16:15 PM PST by Born in a Rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I wonder how many of the libertarians would suddenly see value in the public dole if the alternative was turning to the church.

Not I. I'll take the church's help over the state's anyday. Because if I no longer want the church's help, I can always walk away.

82 posted on 01/27/2003 2:16:22 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
That's not true. You are confusing us with anarchists. We don't have any problem with laws that are for the defense of rights.

For many months, I considered starting using the term "libertarian" to describe myself, but then I started looking at more and more "liberatians" and their views. Many (and I use that word instead of most or an assumed "all") libertarians are anarchists in the purest sense of the word.

They believe in no government and call it "personal responsibility", they believe that society is corrupt and tag any government policy that benefits society as "socialism", they feel that if we were to get rid of society we could rid ourselves of any government. After all, government is in place to help society and if society is undesirable, then the tool of society must be undesirable as well, if not down right tyrannical.

83 posted on 01/27/2003 2:16:38 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Alot of good they did for Dale Earnhart.

/sarcasm off

Asbestos suit on
84 posted on 01/27/2003 2:18:23 PM PST by The SISU kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
We fought and spent thousands of lives and millions of dollars so that people wouldn't have to wear seatbelts? The ignorant ranting of an anarchist consumed with himself and outraged at society even existing.
85 posted on 01/27/2003 2:19:15 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Have you not read some of these libertarians talking about how the poor should starve if they cannot find work? Or how the widow who has no family left and is wasting away in a nursing home should be thrown into the street if her bank account runs out?

Sorry, but many "libertarians" on this site are brutal, survival-of-the-fittest types who have no care for anyone but themselves. They never met a law they didn't hate.

86 posted on 01/27/2003 2:22:27 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
They believe in no government and call it "personal responsibility"

Go ask any libertarian what should happen to those who initiate force or fraud, like murder, rape or theft. I for one would like them to receive a fair trial and a just but harsh punishment.

they believe that society is corrupt

We believe that power corrupts. However some power is necessary, being used as a tool in defense of rights. The analogy, which you may have heard is fire as a tool:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." - President George Washington

Should we use fire? Sure. But only when we need it, and only properly contained. Same with government.

and tag any government policy that benefits society as "socialism"

There is a difference between socialism and user fees. If you want to use roads, you pay a user fee (registration). If you pay for someone else's retirement, or doctor visit, that is simply redistribution of wealth.

87 posted on 01/27/2003 2:25:58 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
We fought and spent thousands of lives and millions of dollars so that people wouldn't have to wear seatbelts? The ignorant ranting of an anarchist consumed with himself and outraged at society even existing.

Your own words are damning, and that is before we get to the lies and misrepresentations!

To answer your question, YES!, we fought a war to preserve MANY freedoms, liberties and rights. Or handn't your heard?

BTW, it is painfully obvious that you don't know what an anarchist is if you call me one.

But I know what a lying blowhard is, even if I don't call you one.

88 posted on 01/27/2003 2:27:02 PM PST by Eagle Eye (How can the STATE ever be wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Adder
How dare the state set limits on how the vehicle is operated. things like speed limts and lane restrictiosn are unConstitutional infringements on my God-given right to act however I please! As long as I don't hit anyone or run them off the road, what business is it of the State how I operate my vehicle?

You people do realise you read like a bunch of spoiled five year olds, right?

89 posted on 01/27/2003 2:27:44 PM PST by Chemist_Geek ("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: lavocat
I agree with you guys!
90 posted on 01/27/2003 2:30:16 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Have you not read some of these libertarians talking about how the poor should starve if they cannot find work? Or how the widow who has no family left and is wasting away in a nursing home should be thrown into the street if her bank account runs out?

No, I haven't.

91 posted on 01/27/2003 2:30:22 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Who pays that cost?

I have no idea how often that happens but let's assume that it happens every day.

Just how the heck did we get along so well in this country with no mandatory seat belt law (much less any seat belts) for so long?

Were we just totally in the tank and were too stupid to reocongize it?

Come to think of it we didn't have helmets, car seats for kids or even those dohickeys that people put over electrical outlets.

We did have bottle caps that you could actually open, open flame stoves and cabinets you could open without having to fiddle with the anti-kid thingie.

Must be I died in 1958 and don't even know it.

92 posted on 01/27/2003 2:32:00 PM PST by Proud_texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
You people do realise you read like a bunch of spoiled five year olds, right?

Well seeing as we're throwing about ad hominims, I'll accept the spoiled 5 year old label, if you'll accept the hysterical, soccer mom, do-gooder, nanny, violent babysitter label.

93 posted on 01/27/2003 2:34:43 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
If you don't wear one you're a damn fool. Nevertheless, in a free country one has the right to be a damn fool. It should not be the governments business

If you don’t use a seatbelt, you are an idiot. The benefit and protection that come from seatbelts cannot be denied.

WRONG ANSWER !!!

Its idiotic drivel such as this that kills our freedoms and liberties. In two separate wrecks, myself and my brother would both be DEAD had we been belted in, thanks for helping to raise the state revenue and screw my freedom to choose to live.

94 posted on 01/27/2003 2:38:26 PM PST by Gilbo_3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
How come you can get a ticket for driving 110 MPH on a deserted road?

Because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. I'm not interested in red herrings about fast food or cigarettes. The state's justification for making the rules for operating motor vehicles on publicly funded roads is obvious to most sane people.

By the way, the fairly recent seat belt law enacted in Indiana saved my wife and two childrens' lives a couple of years ago. They might very well not be here if not for their "fear of the state" that caused them to "knuckle under" to the fascism of common sense.

I have a pretty wide Ayn Rand streak in me too, but I pick my battles a little more selectively than this.

Stay safe. Or don't.
95 posted on 01/27/2003 2:41:28 PM PST by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Who paid for the road you used to get to the grocery store?

Correct me if Im wrong, but my 2 cents went into paying for at least some of the potholes.

96 posted on 01/27/2003 2:42:51 PM PST by Gilbo_3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
Sounds like you'd go along with mandatory condom laws. Even when alone.
97 posted on 01/27/2003 2:43:11 PM PST by Eagle Eye (The STATE is my shepherd, I shall not want,; it maketh me wear seatbelts, helmets and eyeprotection;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I have no problem with insurance companies charging a higher premium for risk takers

I do have a problem with being FORCED to carry insurance when its no more than legal extortion

98 posted on 01/27/2003 2:55:10 PM PST by Gilbo_3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
While Im ranting... doesnt it occur to most of you that the seat beltwas designed for a frontal collision ???

That being said, my bet is that most of you who are calling me an idiot for not wearing one are probably the @ssholes that constantly tailgate and blow through red lights, in your mind thinking that your time is more valuable than my kids lives.

you want me to buckle up... then let the state cover my insurance and pay for injuries in a side collision from being held in the impact zone of your selfish arrogance. Even then I WONT wear the damn thing because Im less likely to hit something with my front end than you are likely to kill me by hitting my door!!!

99 posted on 01/27/2003 3:04:09 PM PST by Gilbo_3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
"Calorie counters" aren't practical and wouldn't work, otherwise all these people getting their stomach stapled would use them.

Do you propose just letting the "children of those incapable" of working die?

"Chastity belts for unmarried women?" Now you are thinking!!! That would cure a lot of social ills, from children out of wedlock to STD's. But I'm afraid you are too late. Women can now vote. That cat is out of the bag.

100 posted on 01/27/2003 3:11:47 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 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