So, having read through all three pages of this, has anyone in the US got a compelling argument for NOT wearing a seatbelt besides “BUT I DON’T WANNA! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAH!”?
Because that’s what the anti-seatbelt arguments boil down to.
Most of the rest of the civilised world has had compulsory seatbelt laws since the 1980s and IMHO they’re a good and necessary thing. Personally, I’d wear one even if it wasn’t a legal requirement and I can’t understand how come any sensible person would feel differently about it.
I would be interested in seeing anything in the constitution that mandates government valuation of personal risk and how that translates to enforced public policy. What are the standards? Without a mandate and a set of guidlines there is no limit to the level of safety that can be forced on people who wish to take risks.
That’s what we elect legislators and executives to do - decide what policies make sense, and what policies don’t. You seem to be demanding that there be some sort of pre-existing formulas to figure it out. There aren’t.
I expect better from you. There’s no compelling reason for eating oleander leaves, but that doesn’t mean we need a law banning eating oleander is there?
This thread has been a fascinating insight into just how different many Americans are in their thinking about personal freedoms than people in the rest of the world. And I’m someone who would be thought of as Libertarian, by Australian standards, in many ways.
I agree to an extent, the one really direct issue with seat belts other than some dumbass spending my money to keep his vegetable ass alive is that in a crash the seatbelt keeps you in the drivers seat, not say in the back seat or out the window. so you can still operate your moving vehicle with whatever level of control you have left.
one more thing, driving isnt a “Right” so forcing you to wear a seat belt isn’t exactly infringing on anything you have a right to do.
Derek Kieper
even had a published article on the subject, and you will note that his friends walked away from the crash he died in.
Driving is absolutely a right in that it represents any other activity in the pursuit of life. The “privilege” side of it is derived from the certification process and in no way reflects a grant to be doled out by a governing body.
Seat belt laws have no basis in origin regarding government authority over an individual. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a nanny state and I would put forth most of the laws are designed to restrict government interference in our lives.
Reality begs to differ. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. No matter how many posts you make about it on the internet, it’s still a privilege, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the appropriate statutes.
Feel free to show me something in the Constitution that talks about this “absolute” right to drive you seem to believe exists.
I’d say that driving is indeed a right and not a privilege. The Constitution guarantees a right of liberty, which includes my liberty to drive a car if I so choose. There is no law making driving a “privilege” granted by the state. The idea that driving is a privilege and not a right is just wrong.
However, the state has to power in infringe upon my liberty under the general state police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by due process of law. The state has chosen to regulate driving under the general police power by enacting driving laws.
If it went to court, the court would have to reconcile my right of liberty against the police power of the state. The court, in a case like this, would probably say the law restricting and regulating driving does not infringe on a *fundamental *right to drive and so the law is presumed constitutional as long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is known as the “rational basis test.”
So, the question is whether seat belt laws can pass the rational basis test.
In sum, driving is indeed a right, under the right of liberty, and not a privilege, but the state has the power to restrict that right by the state’s general police power, provided the restriction is simply rational.
So, based on that argument, you object to the concept of a driver’s licence and think that absolutely anyone should be able to get behind the wheel of a car? After all, driving is a right, apparently.
It’s not. If the State says “You can’t be trusted with a car anymore”, you lose your drivers licence and you don’t get to drive anymore. It’s clearly not a right.
Driving is a right, subject to valid restrictions imposed by the state, such as a license.
ETA … but the state then has total control over the “right” and could probably even ban driving cars for everyone completely if it wanted to, which really makes it not a right at all. I see where you are going. Sorry I’m tired.
So being allowed to have a non-bigamist marriage to someone of the opposite sex, of concentual age, and in a non-consanguinous relationship is not a right? Hmmmm . . . interesting considering the ONLY reasonable arguement I’ve ever heard of why the government should ban SSM is that the government should stay out of marriage completely EXCEPT that the type of marriage I described would be considered a fundamental right under the Ninth Amendment to the Founding Fathers.
So what would that say about common law marriages?
A “Marriage Licence” isn’t a licence in the traditional sense in that A) obtaining it is now a mere formality (You don’t actually have to do anything to get one in most places, just sign a form and it gets rubber stamped) and B) The government can’t revoke your marriage licence once issued.
FWIW, there are no “Marriage Licences” here. You provide the government with a Notice Of Intention To Marry, but it’s free (or near enough to it) and they can’t actually stop you from getting married (unless you’re marrying a relative or an underage person or committing bigamy). You say “I’m going to get married to This Person” and the Government says “Fair enough then. Sign here, and have a lovely wedding.” You’re not asking their permission to do it, as you are with a driver’s licence. In short, getting married in Australia is a right, and, in Queensland at least, you don’t need a licence for it.
What about them? At least here, they’re legally pretty much the same as actually being married, but a lot cheaper.
So yeah, you have the legal right to live, in a relationship, with a member of the opposite sex for a certain period of time (six months or so, IIRC) and hey presto, you’re a de facto couple and might as well be married for all intents and purposes.