Skip to main content

View Diary: VA-Sen: Allen's Confederate Flag "collection" (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  someone had an argument for seatbelt/helmet laws. (0+ / 0-)

    ...and argued it as the state having an over-riding financial interest in having people wear helmets/seatbelts because the kind of injuries that result from motorcycle/automobile crashes (head injury mostly) if not outright killing you would cause you to require extensive and extremely expensive medical care essentially for the rest of your life.  And that often those costs are incurred either on the state or on healtcare providers (because what insurance company's going to touch that?)

    I don't know how accurate that claim is but that was an explaination from the pro-seatbelt/helmet laws side explaining what business the state has in the issue.  They argued it as a public health issue (from a cost perspective), kind of like vaccinations.

    •  That is actually the line of argument used in (0+ / 0-)

      several states and as someone who personally knows at least three people who have died in motorcycle accidents I actually believe that a helmet law is not a bad thing.

      Obviously it's a question of personal liberties, but the if the state can legitimately keep smoke out of bars then I think motocycle helmets are a minor nusance.

      I know even more people who have died in car accidents, so is the "liberty" of not wearing a seatbelt really worth a human life?

      Usually I consider myself a member of the "Pro-Death" Party: pro-choice, pro-death-penalty, but I do think we should do what we can to protect and promote the well being of all our citizens between birth and the great white light.

    •  They always do.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChetEdModerate

      ....it is always a public health issue.  Which is how we end up at prohibition and refusing to teach kids about condoms because telling them anything but "don't have sex" runs a risk that they'll have unsafe sex, or become godless or something.  And sooner or later they'll have detectors to check if you even have drugs in your bloodstream and laws against juviniles having sex, and some abominable program to try and enforce that.  It's the public's health, after all.  We can't afford all these underage parents having babies and needing the public's care, and people who aren't doing illegal drugs have nothing to fear from the scanner checks, just like if you're wearing your seat belt, you have nothing to fear from random car stops.

      And while we're at it, why bother having elections?  A panel of experts can determine what is best for the greatest number of American people, better than our uninformed electorate who are just watching three hours of coverage on what the JonBenet Ramsey killer ate on the airplane on the fucking news channel anyways.  And really, we could solve the obesity epidemic if we told everyone what they had to eat, and how much, and what time to eat.  I mean, hell, a scientist just suggested that the obesity "epidemic" is now a bigger world problem than starvation.  We best get the government on that.

      I'm obviously being facetious, right?  I mean, it isn't like we're banning Sudafed and pulling people over to make sure their seat belt is buckled and they aren't talking on their cell phones and talking about banning smoking in your own home if there are children present and monitoring the phone calls and library records of everyone and banning foie gras and talking about banning freaking transfats.  We're a free fucking country, right?

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 09:12:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Free country (0+ / 0-)

        "We're a free fucking country, right?"

        Yes. Free to elect representatives who enact laws that pass constitutionality tests that protect us from other people's reckless behavior, both physical and financial.

        Sure, I'd like to run red lights (not really, just being illustrative). But I don't because I'm a responsible citizen. I don't want to be hit by a self-obsessed wacko, so I vote to put restrictions on my behavior to protect myself from those wackos. As a result, I am "forced," to use your (libertarian collective) favorite antisocial expression, to stop at red lights. Not wearing a seltbelt puts others at risk because of vehicle control issues, and burdens them with addition insurance and healthcare costs. Not being a self-centered asshole, I gladly obey and endorse both red light and seatbelt laws.

        Of course, you are not "forced" to wear a seatbelt or stop at red lights because "the government" does not "force" you to drive. You have the freedom to walk instead. Likewise, you are not "forced" to pay taxes because "the government" does not "force" you to earn income, plus we have the freedom to emigrate to countries where you pay no US taxes. I think many libs would be happier in third-world countries. I have one friend who did just that - to Costa Rica. Of course, when it rains, he can't drive into town for food for several days, because with low taxes comes low infrastructure and other services.

        But there are those who simply can't function in a society and can't cooperate. Like thieves, they see no problem in costing others their rights to live and prosper, as long as they are not inconvenienced. They think reckles behavior is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone, whereas rational people understand that reckless behavior leads to accidents, regardless of the original intent of the perp. Or "Duh," as I like to say.

        Example: I once argued this case with a nutcase libertarian. "So it's OK for your kid to play with matches all he wants as long as he doesn't burn the house down and kill us all, because you already have a rule against that?" All I got was a pout that screamed "I got nuthin'."

        This is too easy.

        "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

        by armadillo on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 01:51:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Foreign taxes (0+ / 0-)
          we have the freedom to emigrate to countries where you pay no US taxes.

          Note that the United States is one of very few nations that requires citizens residing abroad to pay full US taxes on all income, even if none if it has any US nexus.

          Even citizens who leave the country and renounce citizenship can be required to pay US taxes for ten or more years.  I don't feel much sympathy for such quitters but that just seems wrong.

          3.39/-3.27 * Save the Moderates

          by ChetEdModerate on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 05:44:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site