Keep Your Laws Off My Body

[woolfe9999]

AFAIK there's no laws stating that one has to wear a seatbelt or helmet on private property. Driving a car on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege. The laws requiring seatbelts and helmets for Bikes is the same as speed limits. You want to use the public roadways you have to follow the laws...or not. You are entitled to forgo the laws and face the consequences if you feel strongly enough over it and when ticketed you are more the welcome to contest the laws.

Ding. When you go onto property belonging to another, you follow the owner's rules or GTFO. Our roadways are not owned by an individual, but collectively by the taxpayors. In my state, seatbelt laws are very popular among the taxpayors. If you don't like the rules imposed by the taxpayors, then don't drive on property owned by them.

- wolf

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

AFAIK there's no laws stating that one has to wear a seatbelt or helmet on private property. Driving a car on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege. The laws requiring seatbelts and helmets for Bikes is the same as speed limits. You want to use the public roadways you have to follow the laws...or not. You are entitled to forgo the laws and face the consequences if you feel strongly enough over it and when ticketed you are more the welcome to contest the laws.

The obvious distinction between seatbelt laws and say, speed limit laws, is an issue of public safety. Folks that speed put others in danger. Folks that don't wear their seatbelts clearly don't. People should wear their seatbelts, the government should NOT legislate that they do.

You folks that think personal liberty shouldn't be the limit for government's involvement, where is the line? "Their roads, their rules" and "the good of society" sure doesn't guarantee much freedom for the individual.

 

[Amused]

AFAIK there's no laws stating that one has to wear a seatbelt or helmet on private property. Driving a car on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege. The laws requiring seatbelts and helmets for Bikes is the same as speed limits. You want to use the public roadways you have to follow the laws...or not. You are entitled to forgo the laws and face the consequences if you feel strongly enough over it and when ticketed you are more the welcome to contest the laws.

The difference is road and traffic laws exist to protect OTHERS. Seatbelt and helmet laws exist only to protect you from yourself.

Another swing and a miss.

 

[blackangst1]

The difference is road and traffic laws exist to protect OTHERS. Seatbelt and helmet laws exist only to protect you from yourself.

Another swing and a miss.

Although this has been debated ad nauseum, those laws DO in fact save lives, and who knows how many millions in medical costs.

Just sayin'.

 

[Amused]

Although this has been debated ad nauseum, those laws DO in fact save lives, and who knows how many millions in medical costs.

Just sayin'.

Banning stairs would save lives too. So would banning a whole host of risks everyone takes everyday.

The point is not how many lives are saved through force of law, but the force of law itself being used to save YOU from YOURSELF.

 

[hoope11]

The difference is road and traffic laws exist to protect OTHERS. Seatbelt and helmet laws exist only to protect you from yourself.

Have you ever tried slamming on the brakes while not wearing a seatbelt? Seatbelts keep the driver in place when braking hard in an emergency. This allows the driver to concentrate on steering away from a collision.

For motorcycles, eye protection should be mandatory for similar reasons. Personally, I never ride without a full-face helmet.

That said, I've got no problem with ALL drugs being legal. Same goes for selling organs and prostitution. People need to stay the fuck out of other people's private business.

 

[jman19]

Who says a minor cant consent? The law? lulz Doesnt it depend on the age of the minor? But thats a seperate issue.

Sorry, I guess it wasnt clear for you. Let me make it as simple as I can for you.

Zorkorist said you cant be a drug user and say you wont harm someone.

You said Someone other than yourself?

I replied yes, Zork is correct with schedule 1 and 2 drugs. I also made the point there are exceptions. For example, there are people who can use heroin recreationally for years, then just decide they are done, and quit; however, for most users, this isnt the case. Do I need to explain THAT to you? This was to combat the bullshit argument of "not necessarily". To which I used molestation as an example. Most people have negative effects having been molested; however, there are many who dont. That doesnt mean I think molestation is OK.

Is that clear enough for you? I didnt equate drug use with molestation, at all.

YOU made the "not necessarily" argument you fool, and then decided to counter it (you know what that is called, right?).

Don't act like you have to "explain" something to me - I'm not sure why you even bothered to chime in. I was asking Zork to clarify his statement. Your strawman followed by the molestation "example" both brought nothing to this discussion.

 

[Steeplerot]

If my memory serves correctly, aren't Protestants considered a progressive religion when compared to things like Catholicism?

Catholics (Irish, Germans) were the progressive ones back then. Protestants were the descendants of the English ruling class of the USA (WASPs). The ones that migrated into the south stayed pretty religious whereas the northern ones chilled a bit after being stabbed in the back during the civil war. Nowadays we call these folks fundamentalists as the traditional European lines of nationalities and religions are blurred over time here.

Everything I speak of is period here, USA has a very diverse socio-economic/race/class history with all the immigration and civil war and migration even times like the dust bowl put things on its ear.

Having a catholic president was a big deal when JFK got elected. Catholics being evil "liberals" is a old theme that goes back to the ruling classes of the UK hundreds of years before they took over the colonies.

For as much tea party talk as they do protestants/conservatives would have been on the side of the UK and the big corporations (East India) in my opinion.

One thing you will find that runs through all this history when it comes to conservatives, they will ALWAYS stand up for the status quo businesses/elites that run the show and the $ even moreso then their other favorite: nationalism.

And now and again liberals will make a few gains for the people but usually wind up ineffectual, fragmented and prone to bicker amongst themselves.

It boils down to this in my opinion: A fragmented and uninformed Democracy has no chance against profit. It takes diligence and a informed peoples. We are damn lucky we made it this far, many many democracies fail every decade in history.

 

[daishi5]

I'm not being logically inconsistent. I don't support laws which are aimed at saving people from themselves. As I already said, when people decide not to wear seatbelts, it burdens everyone else with public services paid for by taxpayors, and with higher healthcare costs.

- wolf

Ok, how can you not see how inconsistent you are being???

I don't support laws which are aimed at saving people from themselves ... it burdens everyone else with public services paid for by taxpayors, and with higher healthcare costs.

You don't support laws that save people from themself, except for the fact that laws that save people from themself lower our healthcare and public service costs? Can you name me one activity that you can save someone from themself that does not also meet your criteria of raising health care costs?

 

[woolfe9999]

Ok, how can you not see how inconsistent you are being???



You don't support laws that save people from themself, except for the fact that laws that save people from themself lower our healthcare and public service costs? Can you name me one activity that you can save someone from themself that does not also meet your criteria of raising health care costs?

What I am saying is that saving people from themselves is not a reason I would support a given law. That is not the worthy objective of the law in question. If there is a broader public benefit instead of that, or in addition to it, I might support the law, depending on what the benefit is, and how significant the restriction imposed. There are a host of factors I take into consideration in deciding whether I support or oppose a particular law. One factor may be whether it regulates something done in public or in private, on public property or on private property, whether it regulates industry or individuals, how important the restricted choices are, how extreme the penalties are, how it's enforced, and, of course, how significant the objective being achieved is.

I already gave the example of raising the speed limit, which is reducing a restriction versus tripling fines and using the fine money to hire more patrols. The latter would have saved lives, and probably saved some on healthcare costs. But the cost there - draconian penalties for a traffic infraction - outweighed the benefit. It was too much government coercion.

There is no logical inconsistency with taking issues one by one, and employing a cost benefit reasoning to each. I don't take any decision to impose a government restriction lightly. For example, I'd rather the government provide a tax credit for people to buy energy efficient lightbulbs than to ban the sale of energy inefficient lightbulbs, because that alternative achieves the objective but imposes no restriction. In another case, it might not be possible to achieve the objective with no restriction, and I may then advocate that the government just do nothing, or I might advocate the restriction, depending on the importance of the objective and the degree of the restriction.

It's much easier to formulate your position on every issue based on core, inviolate ideological principles. It makes you feel "pure" and "right," and has the added benefit of not requiring a lot of intensive thinking. It's simple, if any one effect of a law is that it protects people from themselves, I oppose it. Nice simple litmus test. Analyzing each issue in turn is a lot tougher, and it's a tough sell for most people because it just doesn't compute to the ideologue who is on an entirely different wavelength. The ideologue wants to put the pragmatist into the opposite ideological box whenever he disagrees with the ideologue on a particular issue, leading to such hilarity as calling people "authoritarian" because they support a petty fine for not wearing a seatbelt. Or else they want to strain to find "logical inconsistencies," which seem apparent to the ideologue who is, after all, "consistent" in applying the same exact principle to every issue.

- wolf

 

[Oceandevi]

I doubt there is a country in the world where selling your organs is legal, even Red China.

In China the government sales your organs for you. Well if you are falun gong that is.

 

[daishi5]

What I am saying is that saving people from themselves is not a reason I would support a given law. That is not the worthy objective of the law in question. If there is a broader public benefit instead of that, or in addition to it, I might support the law, depending on what the benefit is, and how significant the restriction imposed. There are a host of factors I take into consideration in deciding whether I support or oppose a particular law. One factor may be whether it regulates something done in public or in private, on public property or on private property, whether it regulates industry or individuals, how important the restricted choices are, how extreme the penalties are, how it's enforced, and, of course, how significant the objective being achieved is.

I already gave the example of raising the speed limit, which is reducing a restriction versus tripling fines and using the fine money to hire more patrols. The latter would have saved lives, and probably saved some on healthcare costs. But the cost there - draconian penalties for a traffic infraction - outweighed the benefit. It was too much government coercion.

There is no logical inconsistency with taking issues one by one, and employing a cost benefit reasoning to each. I don't take any decision to impose a government restriction lightly. For example, I'd rather the government provide a tax credit for people to buy energy efficient lightbulbs than to ban the sale of energy inefficient lightbulbs, because that alternative achieves the objective but imposes no restriction. In another case, it might not be possible to achieve the objective with no restriction, and I may then advocate that the government just do nothing, or I might advocate the restriction, depending on the importance of the objective and the degree of the restriction.

It's much easier to formulate your position on every issue based on core, inviolate ideological principles. It makes you feel "pure" and "right," and has the added benefit of not requiring a lot of intensive thinking. It's simple, if any one effect of a law is that it protects people from themselves, I oppose it. Nice simple litmus test. Analyzing each issue in turn is a lot tougher, and it's a tough sell for most people because it just doesn't compute to the ideologue who is on an entirely different wavelength. The ideologue wants to put the pragmatist into the opposite ideological box whenever he disagrees with the ideologue on a particular issue, leading to such hilarity as calling people "authoritarian" because they support a petty fine for not wearing a seatbelt. Or else they want to strain to find "logical inconsistencies," which seem apparent to the ideologue who is, after all, "consistent" in applying the same exact principle to every issue.

- wolf

If the government applied and followed true cost benefit analysis it would be one thing. The government, however, is an entity subject to making decisions based on what the majority believes, not what the experts know. When you support the government making regulations, you must accept the realities of how it will regulate. Of the following subjects, how many do you believe are regulated in an intelligent fashion that provides the most benefit to the citizens of the U.S.? And how many of them are regulated based upon good scientific knowledge?

• Nuclear power
• Global warming
• Gun laws
• Financial regulation
• Trade laws
• Immigration
• Health care

And, while you may support a cost benefit analysis for determining your own views, in how many subjects do you consider your self well enough educated to make an expert decision that properly weighs all the variables involved? If you are not knowlegeable in a subject, does it matter if you make a cost benefit analysis? The results of the analysis are going to be determined by the inputs, and if your inputs are ignorant of the truth, your results will be just as ignorant.

 

[Red Dawn]

The difference is road and traffic laws exist to protect OTHERS. Seatbelt and helmet laws exist only to protect you from yourself.

Another swing and a miss.

On the contrary, an unbelted person the the backseat becomes a deadly projectiles when the vehicle comes to an abrupt stop which is a danger to the person in the seat in front of them.

Any ways if this is a windmill you feel is worth fighting more power to you Don Quixote

 

[Linflas]

On the contrary, an unbelted person the the backseat becomes a deadly projectiles when the vehicle comes to an abrupt stop which is a danger to the person in the seat in front of them.

Any ways if this is a windmill you feel is worth fighting more power to you Don Quixote

Considered in isolation you are correct that it is a minor issue not really worthy of getting all that upset about until you consider that it is by an endless series of these "meaningless little laws" beginning in the late 1960's that has resulted in government involvement in our daily lives to an unprecedented degree. It was entirely possible to go about your daily activities in 1965 confident that you were not breaking any laws, how many of us can be confident of that in 2010?

 

[Red Dawn]

Considered in isolation you are correct that it is a minor issue not really worthy of getting all that upset about until you consider that it is by an endless series of these "meaningless little laws" beginning in the late 1960's that has resulted in government involvement in our daily lives to an unprecedented degree. It was entirely possible to go about your daily activities in 1965 confident that you were not breaking any laws, how many of us can be confident of that in 2010?

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or drinking out of the wrong water fountain? It's not as if there weren't laws back then that infringed on your personal freedoms, especially if you happened to be of a different race.

 

[Linflas]

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or drinking out of the wrong water fountain? It's not as if there weren't laws back then that infringed on your personal freedoms, especially if you happened to be of a different race.

No I mean like a 60 year old woman being arrested for purchasing too much over the counter cold medicine in too short a period of time because members of her family had the unfortunate luck to catch colds from one another. Why did I expect that any response to this would bring up Jim Crow laws as if somehow every single thing that took place in the US prior to 1964 is invalidated because of our well known problems with the legacy of slavery and racism? Instead of using that well known diversion why not stick to the main point which is the endless series laws all meant to modify behavior that affects no one but the person engaging in said behavior? Spitting on a sidewalk can actually have an affect on the health and well being of others and I am not aware of any remaining segregated water fountains or bathrooms much less enforceable laws regarding them.

Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws

 

[Red Dawn]

No I mean like a 60 year old woman being arrested for purchasing too much over the counter cold medicine in too short a period of time because members of her family had the unfortunate luck to catch colds from one another. Why did I expect that any response to this would bring up Jim Crow laws as if somehow every single thing that took place in the US prior to 1964 is invalidated because of our well known problems with the legacy of slavery and racism? Instead of using that well known diversion why not stick to the main point which is the endless series laws all meant to modify behavior that affects no one but the person engaging in said behavior? Spitting on a sidewalk can actually have an affect on the health and well being of others and I am not aware of any remaining segregated water fountains or bathrooms much less enforceable laws regarding them.

Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws

Hey you were the one that brought up 1965. I agree with you that there are a lot of bullshit laws but there always was

 

[Amused]

On the contrary, an unbelted person the the backseat becomes a deadly projectiles when the vehicle comes to an abrupt stop which is a danger to the person in the seat in front of them.

Any ways if this is a windmill you feel is worth fighting more power to you Don Quixote

Why would you feel this thread is only about seatbelt laws?

It didn't start out that way, and was only given as one of many examples of welfare laws that save you from yourself. Others may have latched onto it and argued the law with me, but to think this one law is my cause shows you either didn't follow the thread, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[woolfe9999]

If the government applied and followed true cost benefit analysis it would be one thing. The government, however, is an entity subject to making decisions based on what the majority believes, not what the experts know. When you support the government making regulations, you must accept the realities of how it will regulate. Of the following subjects, how many do you believe are regulated in an intelligent fashion that provides the most benefit to the citizens of the U.S.? And how many of them are regulated based upon good scientific knowledge?

• Nuclear power
• Global warming
• Gun laws
• Financial regulation
• Trade laws
• Immigration
• Health care

And, while you may support a cost benefit analysis for determining your own views, in how many subjects do you consider your self well enough educated to make an expert decision that properly weighs all the variables involved? If you are not knowlegeable in a subject, does it matter if you make a cost benefit analysis? The results of the analysis are going to be determined by the inputs, and if your inputs are ignorant of the truth, your results will be just as ignorant.

Yes, you've correctly identified the limitation of a cost-benefit, issue-by-issue approach to politics, but you haven't explained why an ideological approach yields a superior result. The ideologue doesn't need to even try to study most issues and come to the most informed conclusion possible, because the ideological principle provides a ready made position on each issue which is then adhered to in a thoughtless, kneejerk manner. As a pragmatist, I make every effort possible to learn about each issue, within the limits of my expertise and available time. It isn't anywhere near perfect. I recognize that I cannot have sufficient knowledge to be 100% certain that I am "right" on every policy stance, but I am confident that studying each issue reduces the *degree* of error versus relying a broad brush philosophy, sloganeering, and propaganda. The irony is that the ideologue has studied the issue less, but is far *more* convinced of the rightness of his position, to the point of arrogance.

If we had more politicians approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have better public policy on the whole. If we had more voters approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have a more informed electorate making better decisions at the ballot box.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

Yes, you've correctly identified the limitation of a cost-benefit, issue-by-issue approach to politics, but you haven't explained why an ideological approach yields a superior result. The ideologue doesn't need to even try to study most issues and come to the most informed conclusion possible, because the ideological principle provides a ready made position on each issue which is then adhered to in a thoughtless, kneejerk manner. As a pragmatist, I make every effort possible to learn about each issue, within the limits of my expertise and available time. It isn't anywhere near perfect. I recognize that I cannot have sufficient knowledge to be 100% certain that I am "right" on every policy stance, but I am confident that studying each issue reduces the *degree* of error versus relying a broad brush philosophy, sloganeering, and propaganda. The irony is that the ideologue has studied the issue less, but is far *more* convinced of the rightness of his position, to the point of arrogance.

If we had more politicians approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have better public policy on the whole. If we had more voters approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have a more informed electorate making better decisions at the ballot box.

- wolf

I don't support an idealistic approach on the assumption that it provides a superior result. I support the idealistic approach of freedom because I don't think I know enough to tell other people what to do. I.E. I believe in freedom unless faced with good evidence that restrictions will provide a positive benefit.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If we had more politicians approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have better public policy on the whole. If we had more voters approaching policy in a pragmatic way, we'd have a more informed electorate making better decisions at the ballot box.

- wolf

But we clearly don't, which is why there need to be definite limits on what legislation the retarded politicians and voters can impose on everyone. Who is being the ideologue now?

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't support an idealistic approach on the assumption that it provides a superior result. I support the idealistic approach of freedom because I don't think I know enough to tell other people what to do. I.E. I believe in freedom unless faced with good evidence that restrictions will provide a positive benefit.

Ding. This is exactly my approach. You and I might disagree on a particular issue, i.e. seatbelts, because you think there isn't a compelling enough case for the restriction and I do. That isn't what's important. What's important is to avoid absolutism in your thinking.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

But we clearly don't, which is why there need to be definite limits on what legislation the retarded politicians and voters can impose on everyone. Who is being the ideologue now?

Dunno, who do you think is being the ideologue?

For the record, we have definite limits on what the government can do. It's called the Constitution. Any attempt to impose a set of bright line limits beyond that raises the question of who or what gets to decide those limits.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

Ding. This is exactly my approach. You and I might disagree on a particular issue, i.e. seatbelts, because you think there isn't a compelling enough case for the restriction and I do. That isn't what's important. What's important is to avoid absolutism in your thinking.

- wolf

True, I only jumped into this because I thought the characterization of his argument as slippery slope was unfair.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Dunno, who do you think is being the ideologue?

For the record, we have definite limits on what the government can do. It's called the Constitution. Any attempt to impose a set of bright line limits beyond that raises the question of who or what gets to decide those limits.

- wolf

Constitutional limits get bypassed all the time if a reason is deemed good enough poitically. That is not acceptable to me, and it's very worrisome that to so many Americans it is.