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

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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

this is the most tiresome argument che

show me some statistics about not wearing a seatbelt being a threat to OTHERS...

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But generally, the public demanded the government protect them, not from themselves, but from the carelessness or callousness of others.

and this is wrong too...

it's not the "public"

it's usually a small, vocal minority of whiny people

edit: fixed spelling

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by 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.

And what that does to your car insurance rates!

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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=-

The masses seek security genius. The "masses" years for stability and things to be nice and safe. Only fools and Liberterians think otherwise.

You speak about Silly Laws. Well, those "silly Laws" will be surpased by stricter laws. It will be made illegal to shoot any marine mammals without a license. The loophole on wife beating will be closed, and given there are no indians around, you won;t be able to carry a gun. This is your Liberterian fantasy land?

Here in NYC smoking was banned in all restaurants and bars. Bar owners and smokers howled. The law is hugely popular and smoking will probably NEVER return to these places, anymore than Cocaine is about to be made a legal susbance again.

[Flubber]

Vel -- just curious-- but notwithstanding what the law might be, Do you wear your seatbelt?

I do-- to me its a simple precaution and I see no reason not to.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sava


this is the most tiresome argument che

show me some statistics about not wearing a seatbelt being a threat to OTHERS...

You consumse resources that would be better spent on others.

[Velociryx]

Wow! You're the genius....please forgive my humble presence in the same thread with you.

So...the masses desire safety, do they?

Why then...that'd mean that they (all those safety desiring masses) would prolly not NEED a law inducing them to wear a seatbelt, since it would be for their own safety and protection.

Which in turn means that the law is just as silly as I had initially indicated, or, even better, was crafted for some other purpose than to provide safety to the masses.

No injuns around? Mayhaps the white man genocide was more effective where you live, but around here we've got PeeDee, Lumbee, Cherokee, and a whole host of others. I don't think they got the memo that they don't exist any more. Might want to send it again, yes?

And, while it is true that SOME laws were replaced by other, more stringent ones, others were simply deemed too laughable and rediculous to enforce, and faded quietly into obscurity, while remaining on the books (dentists not being legally permitted to sleep in bathtubs, for a prime example of a law that did NOT get a more stringent varient, and there are many others).

But that was amusing, thanks!

-=Vel=-

PS to Flubber: The one in my truck malfunctioned some years ago and no longer works at all. I don't now, and didn't always before.

It would cost me more to replace it than it's worth, so....nahhh, I don't bother with it.

Will I, when I get around to replacing the truck? Sure. A fair bit of the time.

But that won't change the way I feel about the law, nor will I feel more compelled to do so cos the fundiecrats have tol' me to...

-v.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So...the masses desire safety, do they?

Why then...that'd mean that they (all those safety desiring masses) would prolly not NEED a law inducing them to wear a seatbelt, since it would be for their own safety and protection.

Which in turn means that the law is just as silly as I had initially indicated, or, even better, was crafted for some other purpose than to provide safety to the masses.

Talk about being dense in the uptake. Making everyone wear seatbelts makes the masses safer. Car accident fatalities are way down thanks to all the safety laws passed. The masses have gotten security, and at no expense other than putting on a seatbelt.

but please, do keep missing the point when you "analyse" statements....

No injuns around? Mayhaps the white man genocide was more effective where you live, but around here we've got PeeDee, Lumbee, Cherokee, and a whole host of others. I don't think they got the memo that they don't exist any more. Might want to send it again, yes?

Captain "missing the obvious" strikes again.

And, while it is true that SOME laws were replaced by other, more stringent ones, others were simply deemed too laughable and rediculous to enforce, and faded quietly into obscurity, while remaining on the books (dentists not being legally permitted to sleep in bathtubs, for a prime example of a law that did NOT get a more stringent varient, and there are many others).

But that was amusing, thanks!

-=Vel=-

Except of course anti-smoking laws and seatbelt laws are emminently enforceable. Its easy to spot a smoker. And its easy to set up a random police checkpoint.

Thanks for undermining your own arguement though.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


Simple-- The argument against regulation is about the choice of going into a smoking place . Children don't have that ability so the state has made that choice with regard to children in public venues. The parents still have the full choice for themselves when not with children. The businesses had a choice to be smoking and non and abide by the rules that that status brings

Note I do not support any parent that "chooses" to regularly inflict tobacco smoke on their children in their own home . Knowing what we know about tobacco, I can respect a person's right to do that to their own body but am uncomfortable with their "right" wrt their children. It is beyond what I think the state can or should get involved in though

But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:

1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"

So where's the compromise? Did the businesses have a choice to comply with this new regulation? This "choice" thing is just a shell game to keep avoiding the real issue - it's fine to have some government regulation (it's everywhere, and almost always for the "public good") on private businesses, just not when you happen to disagree with it or it might affect you personally. And it's not like smoking itself is being banned, just smoking in bars/restaurants. So you always have your vaunted "choice" - either eat or drink in a restaurant/bar, or smoke. Isn't choice wonderful?

[Velociryx]

Oh Lord GePap...you are a gem! One of the reasons I love coming back!

You're almost as stoic in your wayward beliefs as Kid, and that's really saying something!

Carry on!

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx


PS to Flubber: The one in my truck malfunctioned some years ago and no longer works at all. I don't now, and didn't always before.

It would cost me more to replace it than it's worth, so....nahhh, I don't bother with it.

Will I, when I get around to replacing the truck? Sure. A fair bit of the time.

But that won't change the way I feel about the law, nor will I feel more compelled to do so cos the fundiecrats have tol' me to...

-v.

hmm a seatbelt malfunction ?? How OLD is your vehicle??

Originally posted by Velociryx


It would cost me more to replace it than it's worth, so....nahhh, I don't bother with it.
-v.

A few bucks for such greatly increased safety?? Worth it to me every time.

But then again-- call me a rebel but I spent hundreds of dollars on carseats for my son so I guess I'm just a spendthrift

[Ming]

What's this Public Good stuff... If it was a matter of public good, they would outlaws bars period. Liquor is also one of the leading health hazards... Yeah, restrict the owners right to allow smoking in a bar, but make him pay for a liquor license so he can help people kill themselves with liquor... maybe if there was "allowed smoking inside license" the government would leave it alone

[GePap]

What's sad is that a lot of times you think you actually made sense.

Cause of course when back in the day a law was passed saying you could carry guns in case on Indian attack, the people who wrote it meant to say "if anyone of Native American blood happens to be walking by, you can carry a gun!". Yup, that was exactly what they meant

And then your "silly law arguement". Of course laws that are unenforceable are silly-the purpose of a law is negated if you can;t enforce it. To go from there to saying that easily enforceable laws will be struck down "for being silly" is a rather teneous leap of logic, but of the type you commonly make.

And as for the masses: You may be able to regulate your own seatbelt wearing. But what of your loved ones when you are not in the car? As they always say, think of the children. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

[Velociryx]

*wipes tears from eyes* 'k...I've had a moment to recover. That was great. GePap's "debunking" of my post. I'm honored! And, it was pretty good too, at least from a fluff perspective...not a lot of substance, but that's no great shock. 'bout the only comment-worth "rebutt" was the point that the masses get their desired safety on account of the law....but then, since the masses desire safety, that means that most of them were wearing seatbelts before the law came to be, which in turn means that their own actions (not the law, which came later) were what gave them the aforementioned safety...but I know that's too much to follow, so sure....we shall let the point stand!

And Flub...she's a '97 Ranger. Seatbelt jammed up (oddly enough) during an accident (someone T-boned me), and I had to cut the belt to get out of the truck. Didn't bother to get it fixed, and still haven't.

Sometime ~22-24 months from now, the old gal is up for retirement, and will be replaced, along with the defective part(s).

-=Vel=-

[Kontiki]

I never got this whining from bars and restaurants about losing business from a smoking ban anyway. It's not like it's selectively applied (hopefully), so you're not losing business to your competitors. If people want to go out to eat or drink, they're still going to do it - they just won't be able to smoke while doing it. How many people go out to a restaurant or bar JUST to smoke? If you were planning on going out with some friends for a night at the club, would you cancel the whole thing because you couldn't smoke? Don't feel like cooking tonight, but you'll force yourself to anyway because you can't have a cigarette at the restaurant? You're on a trip and you need to eat - better do it on the sidewalk because you can't light up in a restaurant?