I'm sorry....

[westvirginia]

Killing Lions fans and requiring use of seat belts is a bit of a difference.

 

Again, the difference is in degree. The principle is the same. Let's not say killing, lets say, because Lions fans money spent on tickets would be better off feeding some poor starving American, the gov't decided to take it and use it thusly. Are you OK with that? I mean, the governement is deciding its for the general welfare, right? Or even better, no one has any right to spend money for entertainment while people are homeless and starving! Let's just say there is no gambling, sports, or film industry and all that money should be collected in taxes to help the starving and homeless and poor. It's for the general welfare, right?

[TheShiznit]

you shouldnt be ticketed if you put 100k into an escrow account to be used for your medical, public service, and any other cost associated with a non-seatbelt injury or death.

 

typical of todays conservative......we don't deny liberty....well....except when it maximizes profits!!!! LOL

[westvirginia]

typical of todays conservative......we don't deny liberty....well....except when it maximizes profits!!!! LOL

 

And today's liberal is all for freedom - unless it actually gets in the way of what government wants to do. Neither of the current power parties are in love with liberty, so come off the high horse dude.

[MikesVikes]

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.

 

I have never seen an Amish person wear a seatbelt.

[MikesVikes]

Last year, all of my family members met at my mom's house so my brother could tell us that he had brain cancer. On his way home, he was stopped in a nearby town for not wearing his seatbelt. He was just driving out of a gas station and wasn't on the road yet. He got a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt and he didn't think that he would live out the year. It sucks sometimes.

[Egret]

Again, the difference is in degree. The principle is the same. Let's not say killing, lets say, because Lions fans money spent on tickets would be better off feeding some poor starving American, the gov't decided to take it and use it thusly. Are you OK with that? I mean, the governement is deciding its for the general welfare, right? Or even better, no one has any right to spend money for entertainment while people are homeless and starving! Let's just say there is no gambling, sports, or film industry and all that money should be collected in taxes to help the starving and homeless and poor. It's for the general welfare, right?

That's silly talk and you know it. We have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[westvirginia]

That's silly talk and you know it. We have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

OK, but some starving homeless person's right to life (i.e. food) outweighs your right to pursue your happiness, doesn't it? (The pursuit of happiness is generally meant as property). It's not silly, Egret, it's just the logical extension of your argument. If the general welfare required you to give up sports and entertainment spending, then under your interpretation, the preamble to the constitution gives them that right, doesn't it?

 

BTW, I hope you aren't teaching these kids, civics...

[TheShiznit]

And today's liberal is all for freedom - unless it actually gets in the way of what government wants to do. Neither of the current power parties are in love with liberty, so come off the high horse dude.

 

You mistook my criticism...since I am a conservative....one built in the ilk of an Eisenhower/Goldwater type....I see todays conservatives...I.E. my party...as complete and total arses. But you observation is true nonetheless.

 

However, I don't ride horses...so I may have a problem complying with your request

[MikesVikes]

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?

 

A serious question coming out of Wisconsin no doubt. I'd be concerned about that myself.

[Big John]

A serious question coming out of Wisconsin no doubt. I'd be concerned about that myself.

Or Upstate New York.

[Egret]

OK, but some starving homeless person's right to life (i.e. food) outweighs your right to pursue your happiness, doesn't it? (The pursuit of happiness is generally meant as property). It's not silly, Egret, it's just the logical extension of your argument. If the general welfare required you to give up sports and entertainment spending, then under your interpretation, the preamble to the constitution gives them that right, doesn't it?

 

BTW, I hope you aren't teaching these kids, civics...

My only point is that the constitution can be interpreted many different ways. I do teach the constitution. I've given no political view points, only stated quotes from the constitution. It's scary how quickly people can jump to conclusions. This proves the same point that I bring up in the classroom: the constitution has been debated since the beginning. Here's a little homework, do a quick google search on Thomas Jefferson and general welfare.

[The Holy Roller]

OK, but some starving homeless person's right to life (i.e. food) outweighs your right to pursue your happiness, doesn't it? (The pursuit of happiness is generally meant as property). It's not silly, Egret, it's just the logical extension of your argument. If the general welfare required you to give up sports and entertainment spending, then under your interpretation, the preamble to the constitution gives them that right, doesn't it?

 

BTW, I hope you aren't teaching these kids, civics...

 

Ahem. I teach Civics. I haven't seen a sliding scale of which rights are most important in either the Declaration or the Constitution. It would be an interesting study to come up with a consensus here, though. After our unit on the Bill of Rights I always have the kids write an essay on which of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights THEY think is most important. Usually those listed in the first amendment receive the most attention. I did have one young man write that he thought the second was most important because without it we would lose all the others. So I agree with Egret here. It's still open to interpretation as a "living" document.

[isleseeya]

just put your seatbelt on Big Mike ...forget the state , the law and tickets ..if it can help you get home to see your family at night , just do it

 

not a big deal imho

[Kid Cid]

just put your seatbelt on Big Mike ...forget the state , the law and tickets ..if it can help you get home to see your family at night , just do it

 

not a big deal imho

It is a big deal though. It's the same thing as if the State passed a law telling you to blow your nose after every sneeze. It's not that the idea is wrong, it's that the State has no business intefering with your private life in that way.

 

The seatbelt laws are just another example of the rights of the people getting trampled by laws designed to help business in some fashion. In this case, the insurance companies.

[dmarc117]

It is a big deal though. It's the same thing as if the State passed a law telling you to blow your nose after every sneeze. It's not that the idea is wrong, it's that the State has no business intefering with your private life in that way.

 

The seatbelt laws are just another example of the rights of the people getting trampled by laws designed to help business in some fashion. In this case, the insurance companies.

 

 

so the seatbelt laws just help the insurance companies? they dont help the public in any way?

[Kid Cid]

so the seatbelt laws just help the insurance companies? they dont help the public in any way?

Helping the public is not the driving force behind getting these laws passed and no, I don't believe that there is a great benefit to the public in these laws. The law may save a life because someone who wouldn't normally wear a seatbelt was wearing one, but that's not a benefit to the public at large. One could argue that it is a detriment to the public and the general welfare as that person should have been removed from the gene pool as potentially hazardous to the public and future generations. The seatbelt laws in every state that has enacted them were lobbied for very hard by the insurance industry. It helps lower their costs by reducing the number of deaths they must pay claims for. That's where the true benefit of these laws come in.

 

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that very few, if any of the laws enacted these days aren't really for the benefit of business in some way shape or form. Very few grassroots efforts have the size or momentum to actively convince lawmakers at anything other than a local level of their views. Business is able to focus too much money in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions on any effort that gives them a competetive advantage for the citizenry to really be heard anymore.

[BigMikeinNY]

just put your seatbelt on Big Mike ...forget the state , the law and tickets ..if it can help you get home to see your family at night , just do it

 

not a big deal imho

 

I agree! Now that I am a dad, I have worn it more than ever, but not 100%. Sometimes it's just not comfortable to wear, other times I'm only driving 30 seconds away and I don't feel like putting it on. I am not saying "I REFUSE TO WEAR IT", I am simply stating that it's my choice, not theirs. I in no way, shape, or form; am hurting other drivers on the road by leaving it off. This isn't like dealing drugs or giving away second hand smoke. The only person I am putting in danger is myself.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I have never seen an Amish person wear a seatbelt.

 

or go to a LIons game.

[Big John]

or go to a LIons game.

...but did go to Bears games.

 

(As in Huddler Ralph Furley is a Bears fan and had a former name of Amish)

[wiegie]

I agree! Now that I am a dad, I have worn it more than ever, but not 100%. Sometimes it's just not comfortable to wear, other times I'm only driving 30 seconds away and I don't feel like putting it on... The only person I am putting in danger is myself.

And your kids and spouse.

[detlef]

other times I'm only driving 30 seconds away and I don't feel like putting it on.

Here's a great solution for those 30 second trips. Freaking walk. No seatbelt, no gas, a little fresh air...

[Kid Cid]

And your kids and spouse.

Are your chances of getting into an accident greater by not wearing a seatbelt? Are the passengers in your vehicle at any greater risk of injury by your not wearing a seatbelt? Explain please.

[detlef]

Are your chances of getting into an accident greater by not wearing a seatbelt? Are the passengers in your vehicle at any greater risk of injury by your not wearing a seatbelt? Explain please.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that ouija is implying that you are likely a better husband and father if you're not turned into a vegetable by an accident made worse by not buckling up.

 

Keep in mind, like most things, I'd just as soon it be a personal choice so I'm not weighing in on the gubment control part of the argument. Rather the, "don't be an idiot, just freaking buckle up" part of it.

[Kid Cid]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that ouija is implying that you are likely a better husband and father if you're not turned into a vegetable by an accident made worse by not buckling up.

 

Keep in mind, like most things, I'd just as soon it be a personal choice so I'm not weighing in on the gubment control part of the argument. Rather the, "don't be an idiot, just freaking buckle up" part of it.

But that's not what he said now is it?

 

For the record, I ALWAYS wear a seatbelt myself. I happen to think you're pretty foolish not to do so. Same as when I rode a motorcycle, I ALWAYS wore a helmet. That's not really the point though.

[dmarc117]

Helping the public is not the driving force behind getting these laws passed and no, I don't believe that there is a great benefit to the public in these laws. The law may save a life because someone who wouldn't normally wear a seatbelt was wearing one, but that's not a benefit to the public at large. One could argue that it is a detriment to the public and the general welfare as that person should have been removed from the gene pool as potentially hazardous to the public and future generations. The seatbelt laws in every state that has enacted them were lobbied for very hard by the insurance industry. It helps lower their costs by reducing the number of deaths they must pay claims for. That's where the true benefit of these laws come in.

 

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that very few, if any of the laws enacted these days aren't really for the benefit of business in some way shape or form. Very few grassroots efforts have the size or momentum to actively convince lawmakers at anything other than a local level of their views. Business is able to focus too much money in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions on any effort that gives them a competetive advantage for the citizenry to really be heard anymore.

 

 

insurance companies could care less if you wear a seatbelt. they arent going to lose money. if they get stuck paying for someones injuries, the costs get passed on to the public with higher rates. they arent going to eat the loss by no means.