Grits and Shins Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Didn't your argument in favor of state-mandated non-smoking areas (pretty much everywhere now) cite the increased costs to others through higher health insurance premiums caused by those that choose to smoke? This is no different - the extra costs associated with failure to use a seat belt cause increased costs to all of us one way or another. You should be in favor of this given your previous stance. I will gladly support seat belt laws if cigarette smokers are fined the same amount every time they light up as seat belt violators are charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Wouldn't it be easier to just do a pre-natal genetic screen to find out if someone is predisposed to being overweight, and then aborting that baby? You know, for promotion of the general welfare. Amen, brother! War is peace. Freedom is slavery! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 But what if I'm walking down the side of the road and at the same time, a car crashes into a pole and the driver flies out through the windshield because he/she wasn't buckled up and ends up hitting and killing me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 But what if I'm walking down the side of the road and at the same time, a car crashes into a pole and the driver flies out through the windshield because he/she wasn't buckled up and ends up hitting and killing me? Yeah, that's pretty much God saying your time is up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Maybe what they should do is cite drivers who refuse to wear seat belts, but instead of fining them, which smacks of just another way to raise money, just warn them of the dangers and report them to their insurance company. Then let the insurance companies decide what to do with drivers who refuse to wear seat belts (i.e increase their rates accordingly). That way, my insurance would go down, as it should, and the drivers who refuse to wear seat belts would pay more, as they should. Same as with drivers whose cars have better safety features (side airbags, anti-lock brakes) - they get discounts. this pretty much happens anyway, no? it goes on your driving record which goes to the insurance companies. all you are doing by paying the fine is helping the state pay for the time it took to pull you over and pull your head out of your ass. there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting the laws for what must happen if you want to take your metal torpedo out onto the public highways and bi-ways. that is all we are talking about here. you want to take your car on your own property and drive around belt-less? have at it. you go on the public roads where you share space with others traveling at high speed, just buckle it and shut up. i've had a ticket for not having the seat belt on and i recognized the buffoonery of my actions and paid up gladly. i can only hope that the pull over my kids one day if they aren't strapped in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I just like threads like this simply because it is funny to see the progression of the debate. I mean, come on people, seat belt laws? "They should be able to violate my individual rights to wear seat belt. I'm offended!" So do speed limits offend you? Should you be able to drive as fast as you want on the high way? Should the FAA put regulations on planes for safety reasons or does this violate the personal freedoms of a select few who prefer to fly on busted up planes? I mean you will fail your drivers test if you dont put on your seat belt, does that offend you? Do you not want your children to follow common sense when driving a car? If you really want to get up in arms over the government violating your personal freedoms, talk about the patriot act or any of the acts put forward on the war on terror that interfere with the day to day rights of citizens. but seat belt laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 The problem is that the state patrol probably doesn't enjoy picking you off the highway when you don't buckle up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 We just like to argue over things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting the laws for what must happen if you want to take your metal torpedo out onto the public highways and bi-ways. that is all we are talking about here. you want to take your car on your own property and drive around belt-less? have at it. you go on the public roads where you share space with others traveling at high speed, just buckle it and shut up. Hammer hits nail squarely on head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 We just like to argue over things. i disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 If you don't see the camel's nose under the tent then I guess you really won't mind when the whole camel gets in there with you. Enjoy the fleas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 If you don't see the camel's nose under the tent then I guess you really won't mind when the whole camel gets in there with you. Enjoy the fleas... I'd hit it and the fleas would just help me get off harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Hammer hits nail squarely on head. When you share space with others just shut up and put out your cigarette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I just like threads like this simply because it is funny to see the progression of the debate. I mean, come on people, seat belt laws? "They should be able to violate my individual rights to wear seat belt. I'm offended!" So do speed limits offend you? Should you be able to drive as fast as you want on the high way? Should the FAA put regulations on planes for safety reasons or does this violate the personal freedoms of a select few who prefer to fly on busted up planes? I mean you will fail your drivers test if you dont put on your seat belt, does that offend you? Do you not want your children to follow common sense when driving a car? If you really want to get up in arms over the government violating your personal freedoms, talk about the patriot act or any of the acts put forward on the war on terror that interfere with the day to day rights of citizens. but seat belt laws? Ahh, the seatbelt law is about as intelligent as the sheople can understand. And that's stretching it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Okay ... then explain how requiring an individual wearing a seat belt promotes the 'general welfare of America'. Granted it might promote that specific indivdual's general welfare. I guess you've also decided the bill of rights is irrelevant too? You answered it. Last I checked, the bill of rights were amendments to the constitution... I stated that the constitution gave the power to create the law. I'm not following your line of thinking that leads you to believe that I find the bill of rights irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 (edited) You answered it. Last I checked, the bill of rights were amendments to the constitution... I stated that the constitution gave the power to create the law. I'm not following your line of thinking that leads you to believe that I find the bill of rights irrelevant. Egret, I mean, you're a lions fan and all, so I knew you weren't that bright, but man. This is, umm, well, umm, So if I'm the government, and I decide that Lions fans should be removed from the gene pool, you know, for the general welfare of society, you'd say the gov't had the right to do that? For the general welfare and all, right? Edited May 19, 2008 by westvirginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 When you share space with others just shut up and put out your cigarette. hence the no smoking laws in public establishments. great law. i'm breathing much easier. i do wish, however, that business owners would have the right to decide for their own establishment and then people could decide whether or not to go there. you can't really extend this kind of option to public streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I also have problems with speed limits. Especially since in many small jurisdictions they are arbitrarily posted as to create a "speed trap" for revenue generation purposes. Quite frankly, even though driving is a privelege and not a right, everyone, including the State treats it as a right. It is ridiculously easy for people to get a driver's license. It's used a a general identification card in all situations. Without virtually everyone having a driver's license the State would have to provide more mass transportation as we continue to live farther and farther away from where we work. However, there isn't a one of you that doesn't complain about the traffic and other drivers. Driver's tests should require high speed maneuvering and emergency stops as part of the curriculum. It should require more than knowing there's a stick on the side of the steering column but what it is used for and a deomstration of that use. Yes you should be able to change the tire, yes you should be able to pull a dipstick and check the oil level. You should be able to accellerate to 65 MPH in under 4 seconds in an automatic transmission vehicle from rolling at 30 mph in 4th gear. You should be tested on backing the vehicle into a 10' x 20' space using only the vehicle's exterior mirrors and have the vehicle aligned correctly within the space. The list of things that we should be able to do but aren't tested on in getting a driver's license are extensive. But the powers that be would rather that the criteria for the license is, turn the vehicle on, make it move forward. make it move backward, don't hit anything, and don't act nervous during the exam. Then they have to have speed limits because all the chowderheads out there operating these vehicles can barely do so under perfect circumstance, never mind at 75 MPH with a cell phone in one ear and a screaming child in the other while trying to shave. ARRRRGH! I fraking hate people! Quite frankly, if people die because they refuse to wear a seatbelt, that's a cleansing of the gene pool. What's the fraking problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 As long as society is saddled with the economic burdens of stupid people's behavior, society has an interest in protecting stupid people from themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 As long as society is saddled with the economic burdens of stupid people's behavior, society has an interest in protecting stupid people from themselves. And please tell me why, when someone makes a stupid decision, that creates a mortgage on my life that I must help them through taxes? Where does that moral authority come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Egret, I mean, you're a lions fan and all, so I knew you weren't that bright, but man. This is, umm, well, umm, So if I'm the government, and I decide that Lions fans should be removed from the gene pool, you know, for the general welfare of society, you'd say the gov't had the right to do that? For the general welfare and all, right? Killing Lions fans and requiring use of seat belts is a bit of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCharger Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 So Grits and others who are upset by seat belt laws, why is it okay for there to be speed limits? Roads are paid for by taxes, thus technically roads are owned by the "State". A driver's license gives you the privilege of driving on the State owned roads provided you follow the rules they establish for their roads. In this case, wearing a seat belt, as well as following speed laws, stop signs, traffic signals, etc. By applying for and accepting the driver's license if you qualify, you are agreeing to abide by the rules that are established for the roads, which are subject to change. Choose to not wear a seat belt.. no problem so long as you are not on a road. Speeding and reckless driving is a danger to everyone on the road, not wearing a seatbelt is a danger to you. Government protects individuals from eachother not from themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 That's how society works. We take care of each other. If you can be fully self-sufficient, you're welcome to do so outside of society. The only comparison I can think of is the Amish, who attempt to do this to the fullest extent. Can't we do that without being mandated to do so? I know that I can. The people here at the Huddle have shown time and again that they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Killing Lions fans and requiring use of seat belts is a bit of a difference. Maybe there's a compromise where Lions fans could be exempted from the seat belt law. That way they can winnow themselves out at their own pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 That's how society works. We take care of each other. If you can be fully self-sufficient, you're welcome to do so outside of society. The only comparison I can think of is the Amish, who attempt to do this to the fullest extent. No that's how a socialist society works. Not how our constitutional republic is set up to work. You want society like that you should move to Europe or vote for the socialist party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.