Originally posted by beet1e
Polls are only any use when the results are posted and then analysed with an open mind
Polls are only any use when they are conducted by a non-biased party on a representative cross-segment of the populace with questions that do not predispose a particular response. Therefore, they are almost never any use, as yours isn't.
I didn't "want" any particular result; I am not running the poll in order to trumpet the results here.But, having said that, it's now 17-6.
OK, so the subject is seatbelt laws and their infringment on our inherent right to privacy. The arguments for laws of this nature have been supported with claims of increased safety for individuals and lowered costs for society. The arguments against laws of this nature have been supported by claims of infringement on personal liberties. The counter point to this claim has consisted of citing examples of laws that regulate behaviour.
1. Government does not hold the authority to legislate the actions of an individual as long as those actions do not deprive another individual of his god granted and Constitutionaly expressed rights.
2.
a. Society takes it upon itself to assume responsibility for the costs of an individual. The individual does not request this. This is true in
THE UNITED STATES(
hows that for caps nuke). If it does not apply outside of this country, so be it. You cannot apply another societies social contract to our society.
b. The argument applied to this subject pertaining to insurance costs has been covered fully.
3. These types of laws do in fact deprive citizens of civil rights protected by the constitution. It is not the right to drive around without a seatbelt on, it is the right to privacy. Personal actions that do not deprive another of his or her constitutional rights are the foundation of the ideals of this country. Every law that has been cited in comparison to and as evidence for the legality of laws such as mandatory seatbelt laws have been laws based on preventing individuals from depriving others of their freedom. They cannot be compared with a law that is designed to dictate an individuals action that has no effect on another individuals constitutionaly guaranteed rights.
There is a non-discussion here. A couple of guys(?) who live outside the borders of this country are simply telling everyone that they do not want to live in a society where the individual is responsible for their own actions and big nanny takes care of everything. We also have a resident of Little London (Boston) making false comparisons and presenting illogical arguments in support of an ideology that he believes in, but is contrary to the fundamental principles of this country.
The problem here is the inability of those 3 to back away from their personal positions and look at the issue from another point of view. This does not mean conceding, but simply understanding. This deficiency also results in a lack of any intelligent discussion on the matter. Being outside of the borders of this country should make that easy for 2. Being in close proximity to an international airport should make it easy for the third to exercise his right to live in the parts of the world that support his ideology.
Here's a challenge for you guys. Explain to me why I should be required to change my behaviour when it does not interfere with another persons rights. And I couldn't care less about the consequences of my actions if they were to take place in another country. You have to do it within the confines of the United States and our Constitution.
