well, i got an itch on my right toe that needs tending to, wanna get that for me?
one could equally say that seatbelts are bad and yucky and should be made illegal.
iow, your personal preference is valid only to you and those that share it. not everyone’s preference includes seatbelts. not everyone’s preference includes personal safety at the cost of personal choice. forcing one’s own choices upon others is called fascism. safety is not everyone’s goal or ideal, some people are risktakers. risk is a neccessity for innovation and change. for some, risk is neccessary for a fulfilling life. non-seatbelt use is so low on my scale of acceptable risk that it is below my radar. to have someone tell me i have to wear seatbelts is insulting and demeaning to me as a human being.
[webster’s new collegiate dict.: fascism… 2: a tendency toward exercise of strong autocratic … control.]
but the seatbelt law IS in effect in most states. if you don’t like it, use your vote to say so.
but, and I refer you back to the original post, (yet again) do you think that arrest was a bit over the top in this incident? Or was it justified.
If you want to argue the validity of the law itself, lets start a new post.
>> How much legislation aimed at stopping stupidity do you want before you say, “Well, that law just goes too far, by gum!”? When is enough enough?
You know what I find really incomprehensible and inexcusable? Women who use a lot of toilet paper each time they use the bathroom. I’ve known women who would make toilet tissue disappear like you wouldn’t believe it! I mean, what the heck are they doing with it? I cannot find any justificaion for this waste, not to mention that we are running out of trees, blah blah blah. Does nobody remember the great toilet paper shortage of 1974? Can’t we learn from our past mistakes?
So, there oughta be a law that you get two little squares of paper per time you “go”. And if you don’t like it, do what the people who don’t like the 1.6 gallon toilet do: go to Canada!
I’m telling you, when I’m elected supreme leader there ain’t gonna be none of this waste of toilet paper. It’s immoral!
Preach it brother!
Sailor, I respect your sentiment and even agree with it to an extent. However, seatbelt laws are a completely different thing than, say, banning smoking.
Driving an automobile on a public road is basically operating under a contract. There are certain terms of use you must agree to before taking that car onto the road, one of them mandatory wearing of seatbelts. Public roads are a collectively owned resource, which means that those terms will be decided through legislation created by elected representatives. This in turn is subject to restrictions and conditions, ultimately going to the US Constitution itself. As long as the punishment for offences stays within reason, your rights aren’t infringed at any point by mandatory seatbelt laws.
It becomes just another policy issue, a matter of preference even. Generally these will be heavily influenced by the public opinion, and your view just happens to be in the minority. No one is “right” or “wrong” in a civil rights context.
Should one try the same approach with banning smoking, he’ll quickly run into constitutional problems (not that it would stop the US govt…;)).
What a load of nonsense. Just because a road is a shared resource does not give government a right to regulate every aspect of the lives of the people using it. Otherwise, what would stop them from banning, say, black people from driving? Hey, it’s a privilege, and not a right, so the sky’s the limit, right?
Wrong. In fact, we already recognize that people using public spaces have rights. It’ll be a sad day when we turn over our rights to the government every time we step out of our homes.
jaako, I guess we disagree. IMHO, just because I am using the public road, does not give the government a right to force me to do thingsunless there is an overriding and compelling reason which I do not think is the case with the seat belt. For instance, they have all the right to stop people from DUI because there is a compelling public interest. But if you believe just using the public road is reason enough to justify making you wear a seat belt, and the fact that you use water in your bathroom, even though you paid for it, which might have been used by someone else, is enough to mandate the much-hated 1.6 gallon toilet… then you can justify any intrusion of the government in your life. The medical costs caused by tobacco are astronomical, much greater than those caused by a few people not wearing seat belts.
If you believe the government should be legislating things like seat belts in cars and toilet flushes in bathrooms either
(1) You believe there is a compelling justification for the government to do these things which I do not see and would like you to explain to me or
(2) You believe the government should be able to tell you what to do even if there is no major and compelling justification of public policy. In this case we will just agree to disagree, or
(3) Hi Opal
Now, which one is it?
See, this is why I hate Great Debates. I come in here and open a thread I have an opinion on. I read a post that sets me off, and before I can post to it, someone else has already come along and said what I wanted to say. So I’m basically left to say, “Yeah! What he said!”
Man that pisses me off.
sailor, I agree with you one-hundred percent. I’m hoping you falter a bit so I can come in and take over. Until then, for me, at least, you’re doing a far better job at patience than I could do.
Which leads me to the second thing that pisses me off about this forum- No matter how smart the counter argument may be, no amount of reason will make the other person see the other persons perspective. In fact, you’re lucky if you can the counter-people to even answer a damn question!
gadgetgirl- You’ve done an amazing job at avoiding any kind of question someone asks of you. In my case, at what point do these ‘smart’ laws become too much to you? Since sleep deprivation is a major cause of accidents, do you propose legislation that requires drivers to have a set number of hours of sleep before they partake in the privilege of driving? How about distractions, do you feel kids should be banned from the car? How many accidents have happened because of mothers and fathers who have taken their eye off the road to yell at the kids have caused an accident?
If it’s an issue of insurance rates, do you really believe that a seat-belt law will reduce your rates? If so, how come in my state, Minnesota, I haven’t seen my rates go down?
And another thing, I just heard the dog across the street bark. Sure, he’s fenced in, but I don’t think that’s enough. A mean 'ol dog like that should be tied up, right? I mean, he could find a way to get out and maul someone. And I sure as hell don’t want my homeowners insurance to go up because that yuts isn’t smart enough to tie the dog up.
Oh, wait, I have an idea, I’ll petition my legislature, or council person, to create a law that makes leashing a dog, whether or not their on private property, a law. Any thinking person would, right gadgetgirl?
And to those who want to bitch about my rambling post, well, this whole friggin argument is rambling, to me. It simply doesn’t make sense and I get going. Sue me! Or, make a law, it’s easy these days.
RIGHT!
(there, is that a direct enough answer for ya Cnote?)
look, I just had a little reread of this topic and I think we all (meself included) have gotten way off the topic.
The validity of the law is NOT in question here. The punishment is.
So until someone actually discusses the topic at hand, I’m just going to lurk.
Have fun kids.
Good Lord… the validity of the law is in question here, gadgetgirl, and you’re the one that brought it up to begin with. You came in here saying how you thought the law was not only right, but just. Your exact words are, “And if you are dumb enough to not wear seatbelt (or to drive drunk, or to ride a motorcycle without a helmet,or not put your kid in a car seat, etc) well then, I think the law makers have a duty to protect you from your poor moronic self.”
If that isn’t arguing the validity of the law, I don’t know what is. How do you see it?
I thought so. But to play along with your red-herring:
If you’re interested in whether or not I thought the cop was just in detaining a woman for a crime that isn’t punishable by jail time, then yeah, I think it’s unjust and unfair. It’s illegal search and seizure. And seizure is the key word here. The cop went above and beyond what he should have done.
Now, then, would you mind answering some of the questions asked of you? Not necessarily what I asked, but others? Or are you only interested in glib responses to questions asked of you?
Do I need to start putting my posts in boldface caps? No shit, we understand the concept of traffic laws. BUT THE SCOTUSA LAST WEEK SAID THAT THE COPS CAN THROW YOUR ASS IN JAIL FOR VIOLATING A LAW THAT ISN’T EVEN PUNISHABLE TO THAT DEGREE. Know what that means? To me this isn’t about wearing seat belts,(maybe I should start a new op) it’s about being able to throw your ass in jail for any violation, regardless of what the law says the maximum sentence is. You didn’t put enough coins in the meter? You can go to jail. You’ve got a tail light out? You can go to jail. The cop doesn’t like the color of your skin? ** J A I L ! ! !**
Considering the levels of abuse law enforcement officials have been dealing out on a regular basis prior to this decision, why in the name of sanity would you give them such sweeping power? Are they preparing us for martial law?
If you will note, I DID say that I was at fault too. And for that I apologize.
But to the topic. Ya know what? I AGREE with you. Funny, huh, get past all the name calling and the snide comments and we are basically on the same side. No the cops shouldn’t arrest someone for riding without a seatbelt. It’s way out of line and overboard.
What do you say we turn this around. Instead of punishing someone for NOT wearing their seatbelt, what if we ENCOURAGE people to wear them. Let’s say the cops pull you over for speeding or running a red light or something, you could get say 1 point for wearing a seatbelt, maybe two if everyone in the car is wearing theirs. And the points could go in your favor when the amount of your ticket is being determined. I know it’s not ideal, but it’s a thought.
Person A is responsible only for the damages to person B’s vehicle in this case since person B’s decision to not wear a seat belt gave Person A immunity to any damage dealt to person B during the accident. If person A shot person B that would be different of course, but person B willingly gave up his/her right to hold person A accountable in this case by not wearing his/her seatbelt.
Of course few if any people are against having seat belts in cars, but many of us are against the government saying we must wear them. I am against the government saying that manufacturers have to put them in the vehicles in the first place. If I wanted a car without a seat belt I should be able to buy one that way.
The government should not be able to regulate any of your behavior unless is has a very strong effect on the lives of others. That said, it should be legal to shoot heroin, walk in public naked, and drive nails into your head with a hammer. If I am uncomfortable with my left leg, I should have the right to saw it off. The government does not have the right to prevent my stupidity from removing me from the gene pool. The only argument I can see for seat belts is that I may hurt someone else when I go flying through the windshield, but the chance that I will hit someone as I fly through the air is small enough that that is not a good enough reason to have a seat belt law. Just being alive has some negative effect on those around you, so saying that something that someone else does (like using drugs) has a negative effect on you is not enough of a reason to legislate against that action or I could have every one of you killed for breathing my air. It should be illegal to inject drugs into someone else, but legal to inject them into yourself. Thus, I will accept a law against removing someone else’s seat belt without their permission, but will not accept that I have to wear a seat belt myself.
** No, it doesn’t require the driver to be drunk. One can be charged with a traffic related death, if you caused the accident by speeding, failure to stop or whatever. Drunk is not necessarily a factor.
Sam Stone, please don’t put words in my mouth. Mandatory seatbelts are hardly “regulating every aspect of the lives of the people”.
I also don’t understand where you get the notion that I’m advocating a system without safeguards against discriminatory policies, or one where “the sky’s the limit”. In fact I specifically mentioned constitutional limits in my post, which should deal with both cases.
Sailor, I believe that stopping morons from killing themselves and their kids is enough reason to institute a seatbelt law. The drawbacks of the law are practically nonexistent, and there is a clear benefit to it.
We will disagree on that, but I believe I’m still very far from regulating toilet bowls.
LokiTheDog, I can only quote myself:
Now, my English may be failing me, in which case I apologise for causing confusion, but that sentence is meant to include cops arresting you as an unreasonable punishment.
But anyway, the SCOTUS jail decision wouldn’t change even if we removed a seatbelt law, nor would creating a seatbelt law cause such a thing.
Many laws are of the fine-only type, but that doesn’t mean we should discard them all because of the (IMO borderline fascistic) SCOTUS decision, now does it?
One more time:
Driving is NOT a right.
It’s a privilege, a contract, as has been posted before. The government gives you a license to drive. That license is revocable for cause.
You are NOT born with the right to drive, any more than you are born with the ability to do so. You have to learn how, and the way you learn is in accordance with the laws on the books in the state in which you reside. If those laws include mandatory seat belt use, then that’s what you agree to when you agree to accept the license offered you to drive by the government, after having passed the government-mandated tests, on roads built by and maintained by that same government.
The argument that you have a right to do what you wish is specious in this instance. There is no inalienable right at issue here. This is a social contract. If you want to change the terms of the contract, feel free to agitate for that change. But don’t try to use the argument that the government has no right to legislate in this area, because it has every right to.
The last part must have been to somebody else because I never suggested discarding any laws, simply enforcing them the way they are written.
As far as the rest of your self quote goes, I keep pointing out the reality of the situation to you, but you keep discussing an ideal utopia and how life should be. The SCOTUS decided that sending someone to jail over a seatbelt or anything else was entirely reasonable, regardless of the fact that the Legislators obviously did not, or else they would have given it such a penalty.
You have stated your opinion, I agree with it. I’m just trying to wake you up to what the court’s opinion is because that is the one that will affect all of our lives.
i was born into this world. some organized group of people call themselves a government and say i must bow to their whim. bs. i don’t accept that. they don’t have the right to tell me anything. what they have is the power. as of yet they have not found it within their power to compel me to wear a seatbelt. i will never submit that they have the right to, even if they manage to force me to do it.