Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
AMEN!

He was trying to throw that in my face, Odin. He was quoting me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
when did you become a cynical liberal?

I would think not caring about human life and just caring about money is a conservative position... but if you think that describes liberals.. .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I would think not caring about human life and just caring about money is a conservative position... but if you think that describes liberals.. .

well I meant that the way you analyzed the law and your interpretation of the motivation behind it was quite cynical and characteristic of a liberal

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
well I meant that the way you analyzed the law and your interpretation of the motivation behind it was quite cynical and characteristic of a liberal

I can be a cynic (comes with my semi-postmodernism view of politics), but if you think conservatives and libertarians can't be cynical, then you are living in a bubble .

[Velociryx]

Flub, that (the last part of your post) is kinna my point.

I'm looking at the whole seatbelt thing like this:

* Is it about saving lives, y/n? (If yes, then we should be able to do a cost comparison to determine how many lives are saved for $X dollars spent)....this is a crucial measure of success for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that, right now, at this moment, the neo-cons don't have anyplace to hide. They can't blame overpriced, government mandated "self help" programs on liberals, since NOTHING gets thru congress without neo-con blessing, so the cost effectiveness of the program is most certainly of import, and in looking at the cost effectiveness of the program (factoring in the cost of the "public awareness" ad campaign, we find that the results ain't so good. So much so that the prime mover (given more viable and cost effective life saving measures available AND the fact that this isn't exactly a hot button political issue) for the law definitely is NOT to save lives.

* If it's not to save lives, then we must look elsewhere. Recoupment of the ad campaign monies and then making a profit. Very little in the way of "cost" to implement, since we've already got a cadre of officers in place and they're already stopping drivers....all you're giving them is one more reason for which they can. Easy money (and here, it's over a hundred bucks, not ten, so you can imagine that the recoupment time will not be terribly long).

* Further, those folks who say that it is political suicide obviously haven't thought it through. Now would be the PERFECT time to put a ban of personal autos in motion. Gas prices are on the rise, it'd be easy to shift the public awareness money from the click it or ticket campaign to one favoring mass transit or bikes, start implementing a "War on Terror" gas tax (build in periodic hikes) to help ease the price higher more quickly, and over the course of not much time at all, you completely change the environment to one of no political risk. THAT is what smart politicians do...

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Its funny how people bithc and moan about the insignificant, meaningless "choices" they now lack and yet never utter a peep about more fundamental choices that they have no problems giving away....

There is no right to smoke, nor drive, nor to get a business license. If the Vox Populi wants to regulate these conviniences, then they will.

[Velociryx]

....which is certainly no indication that they *should*...which of course, is the reason for the b*tching, as you so eloquently put it.

As to the other part....giving freedoms away quietly and without a fight...not sure what you had in mind, but I can't think of any offhand that I didn't resist.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
....which is certainly no indication that they *should*...which of course, is the reason for the b*tching, as you so eloquently put it.

Given that these laws are increasing, the liberterian arguement has clearly failed to resonate with the public at large.

As to the other part....giving freedoms away quietly and without a fight...not sure what you had in mind, but I can't think of any offhand that I didn't resist.

-=Vel=-

You ever protest about having to have a passport?

[Velociryx]

Given that these laws are increasing, the liberterian arguement has clearly failed to resonate with the public at large.

You forgot the word "yet."

And as to the second part....you mean..."participated in a march" or something silly like that? No.

But then, I've been out of the country twice without one, so...yes.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Given that these laws are increasing, the liberterian arguement has clearly failed to resonate with the public at large.

You forgot the word "yet."

Given that these laws did NOT exist before but now they do, I think the flow of ideas is pretty clear.

And as to the second part....you mean..."participated in a march" or something silly like that? No.

But then, I've been out of the country twice without one, so...yes.

-=Vel=-

Shirking the law is not the same thing as "not accepting it". Now, if you ALWAYS travelled without a passport, then that would be it.

[Velociryx]

nothing ever changes.

I suppose it's "inevitable" to use a favorite word of yours, eh?

I think there will come a point when "the masses" get rather tired of being babysat by the state, and these laws will go the way of alllll the other silly laws still on the books. There are websites FILLED with them. You should check them out...see where laws like these wind up. You know...stuff like...it's illegal to shoot marine animals from a moving vehicle in tennessee, can't beat your wife in SC, unless it's on the statehouse steps, can't carry a gun unless you believe you may be attacked by injuns....the list is long.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming
Then what about pollution from cars...

Except in general, people don't use cars as self-damaging entertainment. There is a very significant net economic benefit from cars, and few or none of the alternatives to cars completely eliminate the problem of pollution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think there will come a point when "the masses" get rather tired of being babysat by the state,

I suppose they might, if it were in fact true that they are "babysat" by the state. But generally, the public demanded the government protect them, not from themselves, but from the carelessness or callousness of others.

You have no right to endanger others by not wearing a seatbelt.

[Kuciwalker]

You also have no ability to do so

The argument that I find convincing is the amount of public resources consumed treating people who don't wear seatbelts.

[Velociryx]

In general, seatbelts are touted to save the life of the DRIVER who is WEARING said belt, not the lives of others around them, or have you not been watching the government's own click it or ticket ads? The ones they themselves created to garner support and awareness for this very law?

-=Vel=-