raider179 was right...

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by J_A_B

"You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Alcohol is a drug.  Guns are a different matter since they don't impair judgement like most drugs do.  A guy holding a Mauser is perfectly capable of making rational decisions.  A guy high on cocaine or with a .20 BAC is not.  An addict isn't even really capable of deciding whether or not to use the product he craves.

So you would ban alcohol?

The question is where to draw the line.

Well, who draws the line? The 90% who want the law, or the 10% who don't?

Laws which protect yourself from you own stupidity = bad.
Laws which protect others from your stupidity = good.

Again, a small town that has limited resources decides they want a seat belt law. They have found through experience that it is alot easier for their emt's and police officers to tend to victims if the victims of a car accident are close together and not scattered hundreds of feet apart. Now 95% of the town favors this, should the 5% who don't draw that line?

[VOR]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Now 95% of the town favors this, should the 5% who don't draw that line?

If 95% of the town wants this law, then isn't it a safe assumption that only about 5% of the town isn't wearing a seatbelt anyway? Or, perhaps they *are* wearing one but don't support the idea of new legislature for a problem that doesn't really exist?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by VOR
If 95% of the town wants this law, then isn't it a safe assumption that only about 5% of the town isn't wearing a seatbelt anyway? Or, perhaps they *are* wearing one but don't support the idea of new legislature for a problem that doesn't really exist?

Well, I am sure 99% of the people don't do heroin, but there is a law against it

And what about all the people who drive through the town?

[J_A_B]

"So you would ban alcohol?"

I would prefer to live in a "dry" community, yes.  


"Well, who draws the line? The 90% who want the law, or the 10% who don't?"

In the case of a majority so clear-cut, there is little to debate.  Change those percentages to a 51 vs 49 percent, and suddenly you have a difficult issue.  I prefer legal systems which require more than a simple majority to pass new laws since new law typically remains on the books almost forever.



I edited my previous post to better reflect the idea that I prefer most of these "nanny" issues to be decided at the local level.  Ideally, communities across the country should have laws which suit their own local needs.  People in Kansas don't need lawmakers in Washington telling them how to live.  Spreading out the power also has the benefit of reducing the influence of a small group of rich and connected special-interest lobbyists.

J_A_B

[VOR]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, I am sure 99% of the people don't do heroin, but there is a law against it

And what about all the people who drive through the town?

What about the UPS delivery guy? What about being naked in public? What about base jumping? What about a naked FTD florist driving while drunk and watching porn in his car while only wearing his shoulder strap and no lap belt? Amish horse cart drivers? What about a robot with a human brain?

Sure are alot of comparisons and analogies in this thread.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by J_A_B

I would prefer to live in a "dry" community, yes.

If your town wants that, it should be so. The dry towns around here are actually real nice towns that have a high standard of living and a low crime rate. Some give out a handful of liqour licenses to restaurants to serve beer and wine, but there are no liquor stores or bars.  

In the case of a majority so clear-cut, there is little to debate.  Change those percentages to a 51 vs 49 percent, and suddenly you have a difficult issue.  I prefer legal systems which require more than a simple majority to pass new laws since new law typically remains on the books almost forever.

I think on most cases for a law to pass it is alot higher than 51%. If you did that you would have a divided town, and you don't want that.

I edited my previous post to better reflect the idea that I prefer most of these "nanny" issues to be decided at the local level.

That's the way it is supposed to be. And on the nanny thing, I have been called a nanny for supporting this and not once in this thread did I say it was for the safety of the person who buckled up.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by VOR
What about the UPS delivery guy? What about being naked in public? What about base jumping? What about a naked FTD florist driving while drunk and watching porn in his car while only wearing his shoulder strap and no lap belt? Amish horse cart drivers? What about a robot with a human brain?

Sure are alot of comparisons and analogies in this thread.

What is your point?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... seatbelts have been the very focus in this thread for quite some time. See the past 4 pages. Right from the second post by HT. And your first sentence in this thread was about seat belts. And there are more than 150 occurrences of "seatbelt" in this thread. Now you're trying to say that "Seat belt laws have very little to do with it." Too funny. Is that a rabbit I see in my headlights?!

Mmmmm Hmmmm. Seatbelt laws are being used as an example. Freedom and rights are the issue. If you would read the last few pages, as has been suggested many times, you might get a grip on it.

Now...........about that estimate. It doesn`t have to be exact. Not a specific post number or day, just on or about will do nicely.

[VOR]

Originally posted by Sixpence
What is your point?

Sooooo many infinite possibilities for mischief, negligence, tomfoolery and stupidity and sooooo little legislation.

Could it be that we're doomed? Doomed??

[lazs2]

Ok nash... one or two points at a time... My insurance paid for my inuries... I have never had a head injury or any injury that was caused by my not wearing a seat belt tho...

but say I had... Injuries and surgery will shorten your life... I come from a family that makes it into their nineties.... would you rather all risk was removed and we just treated old people (the biggest medical expense by far)?

The drug thing.... I have no problem with people using as many drugs as they like.... show up at work impaired and you are fired... or not... depending on how the guy who writes your friggin check feels... if he lets you work and yu injure me.... I sue the crap outta both of you...

If you drive impaired.... you are attempting to kill others.   the severity of impairment is important tho.

It really is simple... much more simple than 5 million laws trying to nanny everyones behavior and forcing a semi police state on us with 90% of everything earned being lost in taxes.

You just want to make things complicated.  

lazs

[lazs2]

Oh... and sixpense... I believe that you are entitled to make a dry county but... Anyone not agreeing should be compensated... If that means that they have to drive farther to get booze then you should pay their expense... If they are unable to drive then you should provide transportation for them or deliver their booze at market rates...If they simply can't stand your stuffy tulips anymore... you should pay them top dollar for their home...  They should be able to sue you for any inconvienience that your law has caused them.

lazs

[Toad]

Fast forward to the screw-ups of the dust bowls and the Depression. Those folks.... I think... would look at some of your little baby "whaa I want to do whatever I want when I want to because it's my right to be a baby!" rants .....and be disgusted.

[/b]

This is TOO funny. Didn't meet many of the people who lived through the Dust Bowl on the Great Plains did ya? Didn't meet too many that made it through the Depression either, I have to assume.

THOSE people are the very people that are the MOST independent, the least happy about having to rely on any sort of govenmental handout or nannying. They hated "being on the dole"; the Dust Bowl years were just an environmental calamity too large for any individual to successfully combat. Note that most of them went looking for work somewhere else if they couldn't make it in the Dust Bowl. Note that many sucked it up and did make it though in the Dust Bowl.

Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?

[/b]

It gets funnier. THOSE men WERE the ones who had lived through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Men like my father for example. The had the ability to come together and temporarily sacrifice their individual rights to win the war and when it was over, they knew they'd get their individual rights back... heck, that's exactly what they were fighting to preserve.... the individual rights of a free people as oppposed to the dictatorships trying to conquer the world.

Men of the 60's and 70's... you need to shut up. Because you rode on the backs of much harder men than you. We all do, to this day. You aint entitled to squat.

[/b]

We US citizens ride on the backs of men who said

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

and then gave their lives and fortunes to make this happen.

As a man of the 60's and 70's, I think it's my responsibility to see that their work, their sacrifice is not lost.

I ask no entitlement other than the rights they fought for and died to give me.

Guess who:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."


"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."


"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."


"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."


"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Oh... he was a man of the '70's; guess he needs to shut up.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?

As far as a seat belt law the only effect of me not wearing belts has on you is the cost to your wallet.  The only reason it costs the public anything is because the government has decided to pay for it.

The law usurping freedom of choice is inacted because of optional monetary cost.  Our freedom to be self responsible has been sold at so much a pound.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Seatbelt laws are being used as an example. Freedom and rights are the issue. If you would read the last few pages, as has been suggested many times, you might get a grip on it.

Oh I have, jackal, I have. That’s how I know that you’re wrong. You really ought to take your own advice from time to time, and review what’s being discussed. 90% of what’s being discussed here is seatbelt laws and whether or not we should have them. The other 10% includes a few personal jibes etc - you know all about that.

I began in this thread by saying

”I couldn't see what "freedom" had been taken from me because of having to wear a belt - which I did anyway, long before the law was passed.”

– Note, this directly relates to the seatbelt issue.

And your considered response was

”Once again...of course you couldn`t see it. You were too busy giving it away. When you choose not to have freedom of choice and give it away , you have to come up with some excuse for the nadless actions."

You tried to make it sound as if we in Britain had lain prostrate at the feet of our government while the seatbelt law was forced upon us. But then a little research shows that no fewer than 49/50 states have the exact same law!!! – seatbelts must be worn…

But you didn’t like the source of that information, and tried to dismiss it as false by rubbishing the site as an “ambulance chaser” site. But of course, no amount of rubbishing will change the FACTS. But, as it's you, I went in search of another source (two actually) – something that might meet with your approval. I found a Wikipedia link and an NH newspaper site, both of which confirm that 49/50 US states have a seatbelt law – NH is the only one that doesn’t. Yet STILL you refused to concede that 49/50 states have a belt law. But the noose is tightening, and in your desparate attempts to save face, you attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand – more gibes -  before returning to your muscle flexing rhetoric of

”Once again you miss the boat there slugger. What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely.The difference is we are not rolling over and just accepting it.”

But oh! You are, and you have – it’s been 20 years since TX had its seatbelt law and that law is still there - despite your claims that

”That`s what you are not getting. No, not only is it not done, it hasn`t even gotten started yet. Once again, we don`t just roll over and accept things because someone else says so. I realize while you are used to assuming the position it is hard for you to comprehend.”

Not started yet? It's all but finished! - with only one more state to go...

More muscle flexing rhetoric took the form of

”We are not just rolling over and saying "Government knows what`s best for you". What we don`t like , we won`t accept. What we don`t accept, we change. It is not given away freely and not an "it`s over because someone else says so" issue. That`s the difference.”

– one assumes we are still talking about seatbelts (I know I was), and… given the somewhat vociferous opposition to seatbelt laws being voiced in this thread, one could be forgiven for wondering why you still have your nanny seatbelt law in TX, 20 years after its introduction.

And then you finally realised you had lost the argument with regard to the legislative processes involved in the passing of seatbelt laws, given that 49 states including TX have the exact same law as Britain. And… having realised that your sparring/women jibes were getting you nowhere and that you had no more arrows in your quiver, we had the volte-face:

Seat belt laws have very little to do with it.

ROFL!!! WTF???!!! After FOUR pages of it?!!!

So, if not talking about seatbelts/seatbelt laws, what ARE you talking about? Because I honestly don’t know…

But then again, neither do you.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?

You almost have it...  These men paid for our freedom with lives.   And now we sell what they passed to us for a few dollars.  Even is we are talking of the freedom of choice of whether or not to wear a selt bely or not, (and I know it is just a small piece of freedom) we are still selling at least a portion of their sacrifice.