raider179 was right...

[lazs2]

beet... seatbelts are not the point jackal did speak for me.

Nash... you still don't get it... it matters not what degree of freedom is infringed... it isn't right.   You use two examples... One, the stoplight... prevents people from killing each other... that is good law... if a person who ran a light killed or injured only himself... then it would be a bad law... simple huh?

sixpense uses naked people... it could be argued that naked people "harm" others.   They offend allmost everyone..  it would be the rare person who would go naked in public if the public showed dissaproval... I have no problem with nude beaches tho...

junk in your yard?  that's pretty dumb... Have you looked at property values lately?   The guys house will sell for a fraction of what it is worth... let him paint it purple with pink polka dots...

If it stinks or spreads weed or obstructs stop signs or is dangerous to  CHILDREN.... make him clean it up.

The financial end of seatbelts I think we covered.... we haven't saved anthing just built more government.   None of us realized a savings... so far as the injured being a burden.... Why would he be?

We allready have insurance... his is just higher than yours... I have car and medical insurance.   It won't cost you anything...  I don't complain because you and your kids practically live at the doctors office driving up my rates.... I don't complain because you are a sickly person of pisspoor genetic stock who stays sick all the time while I never go to the doctor except in a meat wagon...  And then.... not from injuries you have seen fit to make laws against getting... none of my motorcycle wrecks involved head injuries..


But that brings back nash's examples...  Motorcycles cause bazillion of dollars to everyone... Why not just outlaw em and save us a buck or two?  they have no real purpose and, as beetle says... few people would be affected.... most, like him would never ride one anyway... 80% of those who do aren't really hard core about it.... it's for our own good right?

I bet we could get rid of rap and hip hop and any "angry" music or video games and save a real bundle there too.... after all... what is a little infringement on free speach.... certainly toad isn't gonna drag out those old musty quotes from dead guys on "freedom" is he?

Seatbelts.... cleaning up your yard.... going naked.... sheesh... I wish that was the only infringements on our freedom we had to worry about.   They are just the results of government gone tyrannical....  Of selfish democracy taking precedence over personal freedom.

But... then, I brit and a canadian and someone from boston think that freedom is overrated.... I bet the UN does too.... noo... I know they do.

lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
You're trying to ask me to envision a world where smashed-up cars and bleeding humans are left on the side of the road to die.

Really. That's what your trying to sell me. And that aint gonna happen.

If I gotta contribute to their hospital tab, I'd rather that, than seeing vultures on my morning commute.

Cop car comes? $.

Ambulance? $

Hospital stay? $

Out of my pocket and yours.

Now if only they woulda just buckled up. But noooo.... The whole idea of that would enrage Jefferson or something.

The medical costs associated with fatty foods, tobacco, alcohol, and lack of excercise are huge the cost to the public coffers and continue to spiral out of control.

I propose that saturated fats, fast food, tobacco, and alcohol be outlawed, or at least you be fined when you partake.

Also I propose we all accept a government mandated 30 minute daily aerobic workout, and that you conform to government standards regarding height and weight.

This will save billions, save more lives than seatbelts, and any of you who have a problem with giving up a little freedom of choice should rethink your priorities.  Really...

[Nash]

Well exactly, Holden.

We're in that middle area, between anarchy and tyranny..... between having no laws and having excessive laws.

And your examples, along with the seat bell law, reside within it and certainly are up for discussion. In fact there are already laws regarding saturated fats (labels now required on packaging) and alcohol (can't drive drunk, can't drink young, and limits on where you can drink).

I'm not dismissing your argument completely. There are like, a million little laws regarding just about everything. Some are good, and some are bad.

But right now, if we could focus a little, the issue is whether or not the seat belt law is good or bad. And to consider it not by way of conjuring up Jefferson and panicking about tyrannical governments... but by considering the relationship between costs (loss of liberty) and effects (less drain on healthcare costs).

Now if you want to say that it really doesn't ease the strain on the health care system - then that's fine.... but I haven't seen that demonstrated yet.

Once again, my point is that your loss of liberty by having to buckle up is smaller than society's (everyone's) loss of liberty in how we choose to spend our money.

Going all "It's an affront to my personal freedoms!" is just a meaningless rant, even with the odd dead guy quote tossed in. It's ignoring the fact that we already live in a world with a million little laws - some of which you like and some of which you do not. Seatbelts are no different. They're either good laws or bad laws. Up for debate.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Nash

And since you guys love to quote dead famous people in a way that would back up your arguments  

 


  Just how totaly hip and cool does someone have to be  to make a statement like that?
  Those "dead famous people", as you so cooly put it are the very reason you have the right to be so flippant about their words and principles.
  They didn`t just sit down with a cup of Joe and the puter and put them the thoughts down to have something to do and amaze folks with their O`club coolness factor..
  More hardships, sacrifices and experience were put into them words than you, I and the rest of us here will ever experience.
  Those principles have been defended and fought to preserve. Many lives have been given to do so.
  Those wacky words of them hip cats work just as well today as they did then and , if understood and followed, will in the future.
  They are the very heartbeat and pulse of this country and what it stands for. You might want to consider that and get a feel for that pulse. If it starts to fade and grow weak it needs to be nursed back to health in short order.
  If it stops we are all in file 13.

What did Jefferson have to say about someone walking onto the sub, sitting down, and crankin' Ludacris on his ghetto-blaster?

  I don`t believe he commented on this, but if he had it would probably have something like.." Can you please turn that crap off and put on some Led or Skynard."

What did Thomas Paine have to say about spray paint?

  Once again, I don`t believe he commented on the subject. If he could I believe he would advise you not to huff it while making statements on something you so clearly don`t understand.

[lazs2]

simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. A worthwhile reason is real harm done to others.... financial is not a real reason but..

If you want a less odious law to protect the financial end... you simply make those who don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets pay more for their insurance.... you let the insurance companies figure out what the risk is worth.

Your vison of millions of people spred out in bloody pools on the hood of their cars after being launched through their windsheild on every corner is effeminitly overdramatic...

Most of us grew up in an era of drum brakes and no seatbelts and tires that were a joke.  

And... so far as financial... If you get into a five mph wreck these days.... a 50,000 dollar car is totalled because of all the airbags and crumple zones... You seem to be willing to pay that extra burden so it must not be financial.

lazs

[Nash]

Originally posted by Jackal1
If it starts to fade and grow weak it needs to be nursed back to health in short order. If it stops we are all in file 13.

Chapter 13? You mean that law that was created to protect one from financial ruin? What did the old guys say about that one? How does liberty and personal freedom square with a law that basically screws your creditors while you go about fixing your mistakes?

And you close your argument with that? Gee.....

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Nash
Chapter 13?

No Maynard.........file 13. The crapper, the garbage dump, down the tubes, etc, etc.

"He`s dead Jim."

[Nash]

Originally posted by lazs2
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. A worthwhile reason is real harm done to others.... financial is not a real reason but..

If you want a less odious law to protect the financial end... you simply make those who don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets pay more for their insurance.... you let the insurance companies figure out what the risk is worth.

Your vison of millions of people spred out in bloody pools on the hood of their cars after being launched through their windsheild on every corner is effeminitly overdramatic...

Most of us grew up in an era of drum brakes and no seatbelts and tires that were a joke.  

And... so far as financial... If you get into a five mph wreck these days.... a 50,000 dollar car is totalled because of all the airbags and crumple zones... You seem to be willing to pay that extra burden so it must not be financial.

lazs

"simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. "

I'm with you 100%. Believe me.

But you have not demonstrated that with regards to the seatbelt law, lazs.

Your solution? Let the people who refuse to wear seatbelts pay more for their insurance. For one thing, tha's impossible to do. Because by the time everyone forks out for the hospital tab, it's too late to charge the guy extra for his insurance. And for another, I'm not sure I've heard of any laws requiring passengers to purchase insurance.

So we're back to square one again, aint we lazs?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
A short while ago, you used Jefferson to demonstrate that the Constitution indeed was a living document, and as such, meant to be interpreted.

Before I enter into the twisty world of yours, quote my post that you refer to and give the specific way YOU are interpreting it. We'll go from there.

[Holden McGroin]

Well Nash, the seat belt law and the helmet law for motorcycles are only something(s) that have recently eroded personal liberty.

If a law were passed requiring a 30 minute daily aerobic workout, I'm sure that would be the touchstone of the thread.

A society requiring people to be self responsible would be more cost effective than government mandated micro management of individual behavior.

Yes, still scrape them up off the road.  Yes still perform the emergency attention, yes, it still costs some money.  Charge those reponsible for the accident.  Extraordinary live saving measures, months on a ventilator?  Years of rehabilitation? That should not be for society in general to pay, it should be up to whoever is responsible for the accident.  If seatbelts or a helmet is involved in the injury, then the injured person is at least partially responsible for the costs incurred.

No vultures required.  

If an insurance company required a certian behavior in order for me to be covered, I would be free to choose to pay a higher premium or change companies if I decided that the behavior would be worth it.  My choice, my liberty.

If I get lost in the woods, guess who pays for search and rescue costs? (me, the way it should be)

When government requires my behavior to be modified then I lose the liberty of freedom of choice.

I'm pro choice.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
[BBecause by the time everyone forks out for the hospital tab, it's too late to charge the guy extra for his insurance. And for another, I'm not sure I've heard of any laws requiring passengers to purchase insurance.
 [/B]

No, they would charge in arrears. Just like they do with speeding tickets. Your rates go up AFTER you get a ticket and they keep records on you for years and charge you far in excess of any cost to them. In short, they make money on the deal. What a suprise.

Do they have "diversion" in Canada? It's a process where you "cut a deal" with the local government's attorney. You pay 2X or 3X the "normal" speeding fine and they change the charge to a "non-moving" violation so it doesn't go on your insurance driving record and you don't get "points" on your license.

Ever stop to wonder how THAT little bit of extortion came about? Obviously because paying the city 3X the normal fine is WAY CHEAPER than paying the insurance companies their "pound of flesh" for the next three years.

So, obviously, you just charge in arrears. It's already an industry standard method.

No, passengers don't need insurance. "Passenger Insurance" is already in auto insurance. Passengers are covered by the vehicle owner's policy. It's in the Personal Injury Protection part.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Before I enter into the twisty world of yours, quote my post that you refer to and give the specific way YOU are interpreting it. We'll go from there.

Toad, quoting Jefferson to make a case regarding the Constitution and how it relates to State's rights:

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the habitants of another country.

Thomas Jefferson

Nash:

Interesting quote, though I'm not completely sure what it means. Is it in fact making the case for the Constitution being a living document... with each successive generation interpreting it as they may? I'm no doubt getting it wrong...

Toad:

No, I think you have it right.

I think it's pretty self explanitory.

But I don't want to sidetrack this thread... I just thought I owed you an explanation. It's pretty sunny right now.... I'm gonna find something to do.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile..

Well, who decides if it is worthwhile?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A society requiring people to be self responsible would be more cost effective than government mandated micro management of individual behavior.

Where in this thread have I mentioned self responsibility as a reason for a seat belt law? And who decides if those reasons are reasonable?

You have a responsibility to know the law, when you put yourself above it, you are irresponsible

[Hangtime]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nash

And since you guys love to quote dead famous people in a way that would back up your arguments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you.  ~Dick Cheney

Patterning your life around other's opinions is nothing more than slavery. Lawana Blackwell, The Dowry of Miss Lydia Clark, 1999

We hold in our hands, the most precious gift of all: Freedom. The freedom to express our art. Our love. The freedom to be who we want to be. We are not going to give that freedom away and no one shall take it from us! Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, Northern Exposure, Cicely, 1992

Because you are in control of your life. Don't ever forget that. You are what you are because of the conscious and subconscious choices you have made. Barbara Hall, A Summons to New Orleans, 2000

The Constitution is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to comply. Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )

There yah go... Live folks. Like me. We ain't dead yet. Much to the disappointment of the alphabet soup government organizations delegated to suppress our rights for THEIR convenience.