Reid Goes After Brothels

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...859827168.html

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada called Tuesday for the state's brothel industry to be outlawed, saying Nevada's connection with prostitution harmed its image and could damage its ability to bring in investment.

"If we want to attract businesses to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution," Mr. Reid told the Nevada state Legislature in Carson City.

Mr. Reid also said he had talked to "parents who don't want their children to look out of a school bus and see a brothel or to live in a state with the wrong kind of red lights."Mr. Reid maintains conservative Mormon values personally but has long tolerated Nevada's legal sin industries and is a powerful advocate for casino firms. In gatherings, he often tells audiences how his mother washed laundry for the brothel in Searchlight, the small town Mr. Reid grew up in outside Las Vegas.

Political observers said they believed his remarks were the first time he had spoken out on the topic. "This is a complete shock," said Barbara Brents, a professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who has studied the state's prostitution industry and said she had discussed it with Mr. Reid.

As word of Mr. Reid's stance got out, brothel owners and prostitutes descended on Carson City to represent their cause. In Nevada, brothels are taxed legally in many rural counties, with taxes levied at the county level going toward local services, such as ambulances. But prostitution isn't allowed in Las Vegas or Reno, the state's two biggest cities, and isn't taxed or regulated by the state.

Mr. Reid said in his remarks Tuesday he had talked to a business owner who had decided not to locate in Nevada's Storey County, because it had legal brothels. However, Ms. Brents said research hadn't shown a link between corporate investment and brothels.

Dave Damore, a political-science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Mr. Reid was likely speaking out now to try to stave off any revival of efforts to tax brothels in response to the state's multibillion-dollar budget deficit. Some fear that could lead to legal expansion of prostitution to urban counties.

Two years ago, the brothel industry urged a $5 tax on acts of prostitution as the legislature tried to close a budget gap. Advocates said it would raise around $2 million annually.

The initiative received little support in the legislature. George Flint, a lobbyist for Nevada's brothel industry, couldn't be reached for comment.

******

Nanny state strikes again! Driving a car without a seat belt, paying folks for sex (or offering yourself for money), playing a state lottery or a roulette table, consuming drugs or driving a motorcycle without a helmet should all be legal. If you do not directly harm others with your consensual acts then big brother needs to back off.

Now personally I find drug use pathetic. I have moral objections to getting drunk and adultery. And I think driving without a seat belt to be the height of stupidity. However there is a little thing called freedom that people *claim* to value. That includes the freedom for other people to do things you find distasteful.

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts :rolleyes:

---

The philosophy behind banning each activity is the exactly the same: The State knows better then the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nanny state strikes again! Driving a car without a seat belt...driving a motorcycle without a helmet should all be legal. If you do not directly harm others with your consensual acts then big brother needs to back off.

---

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!! to not wear a helmet or seat belt. The benefits far outweigh and outclass the costs. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The philosophy behind banning each activity is the exactly the same: The State knows better then the individual.

---

Uhh, no, its the same philosophy as the one that creates laws to make murder, theft, rape, etc. punishable offenses...that participating in these activities is directly harmful to the society that the government was created to protect.

Illusions:

Quote:

---

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!!

---

Source for how much that costs? I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom. After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways. Heck why even allow cars in our cities? Leave the roads clear for commerce only and force all citizens to use public transportation! That will save lives won't it?

Quote:

---

Uhh, no, its the same philosophy as the one that creates laws to make murder, theft, rape, etc. punishable offenses...that participating in these activities is directly harmful to the society that the government was created to protect.

---

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes. The basic social contract is that I sacrifice some freedoms for safety. However you want laws that protect people from themselves. That is the fundamental rape and violation of personal freedom and autonomy.

The very logic you use about "society being a better place" can be used to justify damn near anything. No working on Sunday because its good for society! No fatty foods because its good for society! Ban tobacco because its good for society! No music that offends people because its good for society!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You do directly harm others

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes.

---

This reading comprehension fail has been brought to you by the letter D.


I wonder how many times we are going to bring this up (and how many people have to explain it in layman's terms), before Lewk either gives up or it finally clicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Source for how much that costs?

---

I'm fairly certain its variable depending on the severity of the accident.

Quote:

---

I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom.

---

This is a pretty lame debate tactic. Not all "freedoms" are equal, or wanted. For instance someone should not have the freedom to murder their neighbor. Also the freedom to not wear a seat belt is not comparable to say freedom of speech, the freedom to practice your own religion, or the natural rights associated with say life. Your attempt to conflate all freedoms as equal is disingenuous at best. :bored:

Quote:

---

After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways. Heck why even allow cars in our cities? Leave the roads clear for commerce only and force all citizens to use public transportation! That will save lives won't it?

---

The point was to illustrate that you were not entirely accurate in your belief that choosing not to wear a seat belt or helmet for motorcycles does not affect other people. You also completely ignored that more people would likely be charged with manslaughter, or have to deal with the guilt of having killed someone.

Quote:

---

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes. The basic social contract is that I sacrifice some freedoms for safety. However you want laws that protect people from themselves. That is the fundamental rape and violation of personal freedom and autonomy.

---

I'm not for laws concerning certain vice crimes, I'm attempting to explain the logic people will use behind passing them.

Quote:

---

The very logic you use about "society being a better place" can be used to justify damn near anything. No working on Sunday because its good for society! No fatty foods because its good for society! Ban tobacco because its good for society! No music that offends people because its good for society!

---

Which is part of what I was trying to illustrate. People who do these things aren't always doing them because they feel they can make better choices than others, but because they feel its better for society, or something the government was created to do. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

The point was to illustrate that you were not entirely accurate in your belief that choosing not to wear a seat belt or helmet for motorcycles does not affect other people. You also completely ignored that more people would likely be charged with manslaughter, or have to deal with the guilt of having killed someone.

---

Not to mention the paramedics and everyone else involved in a car accident who surely love to scrape brain off a street.

If a Republican proposed this, it would be national news and the New York Times would wring its hands at the Republican "encroachment" on people's sex lives.

Kinda like if the Republicans fled the State of Wisconsin to avoid a vote, they would be called names.

Makes you wonder why a State Constitution would have such an silly rule to be used in such an obvious underhanded way.

It seems the seat belt thing was more interesting, but on that rights and prostitution thing: It is usually done via pimping out victims of human trafficking and/or drug addicts. John Holmes's drug dealer used to make whores eat his ass for drugs, that's not people (in this case women) exercising their rights as libertarians, that's taking advantage of people. I'm not surprised Lewk's championing this behaviour though, what I'd like to know is whether he thinks the drug dealer in question should have shot the women who refused to lick his asshole clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Kinda like if the Republicans fled the State of Wisconsin to avoid a vote, they would be called names.

---

It's not effectively much different than what the Pubs are doing on a federal level right now, soooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

If a Republican proposed this, it would be national news and the New York Times would wring its hands at the Republican "encroachment" on people's sex lives.

---

It just seems that most times when a Pubbie goes after this kind of stuff, he's feeling guilty about his latest chick with a dick encounter. Although it wouldn't surprise me if this spreads to the Dem side too given how the US is in a perpetual flux towards the right.

I was about to create a separate topic on victimless crimes, but this one is just about that, even though it was started with the topic of brothels in Nevada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!! to not wear a helmet or seat belt. The benefits far outweigh and outclass the costs. :bored:

---

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

If I'm going about my day, in a way where I do not pose any threat, nor harm to another individual, then what business does the government have to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Not to mention the paramedics and everyone else involved in a car accident who surely love to scrape brain off a street.

---

Yeah well that's their job isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

---

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll repeat it here for your benefit. The laws you speak of are meant to protect others from harm, not you. The insurance industry was instrumental in formulating those laws because you getting hurt (whether it's due to your own stupidity or not) harms them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

If I'm going about my day, in a way where I do not pose any threat, nor harm to another individual, then what business does the government have to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?
_____________________

Yeah well that's their job isn't it?

---

I like the cognitive dissonance here.

Tell me, if and when your non-seat-belt-wearing ways cause government-funded workers to, you know, scrape bits of you from all over the place, are you costing the government something?

Oh, but nothing ever is supposed to be funded by the government, right? Neat how that works out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll repeat it here for your benefit. The laws you speak of are meant to protect others from harm, not you. The insurance industry was instrumental in formulating those laws because you getting hurt (whether it's due to your own stupidity or not) harms them.

---

Right..so the ends justify the means then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I like the cognitive dissonance here.

---

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

Quote:

---

Tell me, if and when your non-seat-belt-wearing ways cause government-funded workers to, you know, scrape bits of you from all over the place, are you costing the government something?

---

Obviously.
So to avoid any potential costs, we should endorse such laws, 'just in case'. But why stop there, the government should force all car manufacturing companies to set a top speed limit on their cars of 60km/hr, because otherwise we may have blood and brains decorating our streets..but it's ok, because the people will be safer in the end.

Or how about they make another law where it's illegal for females to wear revealing clothes. Their arms, legs, and chest must be completely covered because otherwise they might be raped.

Quote:

---

Oh, but nothing ever is supposed to be funded by the government, right? Neat how that works out.

---

And here you go again with your oversimplifications.

I'll say it again, my life, my body, my choices. The majority of drivers out there do not have the mind of a 5 year old, most people are responsible enough, and a lot more value their lives even more to not risk it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

---

Reading your posts hardly qualifies for presumptuous behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Obviously.
So to avoid any potential costs, we should endorse such laws, 'just in case'. But why stop there, the government should force all car manufacturing companies to set a top speed limit on their cars of 60km/hr, because otherwise we may have blood and brains decorating our streets..but it's ok, because the people will be safer in the end.

---

Let's call it 100 klicks per hour, and reserve the right to make police, emergency and military vehicles that can drive at any speed, and I can support this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Or how about they make another law where it's illegal for females to wear revealing clothes. Their arms, legs, and chest must be completely covered because otherwise they might be raped.

---

Oh look, a conservative slut-blaming. How original and entirely unexpected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

And here you go again with your oversimplifications.

I'll say it again, my life, my body, my choices. The majority of drivers out there do not have the mind of a 5 year old, most people are responsible enough, and a lot more value their lives even more to not risk it.

---

So you're just good enough a driver, huh? What about that meth-head truck driver who plows into your shotgun seat? Are you a ninja enough not to need a seat belt there? This whole rhetoric of "me me me" is really tiresome and morally objectionable.

The choices you make implicitly affect the lives of other people. Unless you decide to go off the grid and live as a sustenance farmer, which frankly seems like the best option for all parties concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Right..so the ends justify the means then?

---

The point is you don't have the right to harm others. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Oh look, a conservative slut-blaming. How original and entirely unexpected.

---

But I was following your, and others, line of reasoning. It's better to be safe than sorry as the saying goes. You know 'just in case.' Right?

Quote:

---

So you're just good enough a driver, huh? What about that meth-head truck driver who plows into your shotgun seat? Are you a ninja enough not to need a seat belt there? This whole rhetoric of "me me me" is really tiresome and morally objectionable.

---

I never said I don't wear a seat belt (anyway it's illegal in the nanny state that has become Australia), I always do. If someone else doens't and they die as a result, or become paralised, then it's their responsbility. But if the accident was caused by some meth-head truck driver, then the blame is entirely on them.

Quote:

---

The choices you make implicitly affect the lives of other people. Unless you decide to go off the grid and live as a sustenance farmer, which frankly seems like the best option for all parties concerned.

---

The likes of not wearing a seat belt, or not wearing a helmet, affect the actual life/lives of the person/people who decide not to strap on the seat belt or don the helmet. The other person involved in the accident, whether they may have caused it or not, will be affected mentally (assuming they survive), but it's not the role of the government to create these 'just in case laws.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

The point is you don't have the right to harm others. :bulb:

---

Do you mean harm the insurance company, or physically harm others? Because you mentioned the insurance companies, now you say 'harm others.' Oh and I can just as easily use the ':bulb:' smiley on you.

So someone tell me, why exactly the government has the right to say that you must wear a seat belt or a helmet, or anything else that is deemed to protect you, when it is your own life that you have responsibility of?

Car accidents can still happen, even if seat belts are not mandatory, hell they still happen when they are. It's not very convincing. Rather it seems to be more along the lines of "Because then someone will die...brains will be littering the road...it's for peoples safety because they can't take control of their own lives." And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

But I was following your, and others, line of reasoning. It's better to be safe than sorry as the saying goes. You know 'just in case.' Right?

---

Way to miss the point mister Wizard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I never said I don't wear a seat belt (anyway it's illegal in the nanny state that has become Australia), I always do. If someone else doens't and they die as a result, or become paralised, then it's their responsbility. But if the accident was caused by some meth-head truck driver, then the blame is entirely on them.

---

How the Hell do you expect a paralyzed person to shoulder the burden of their choice? I would imagine that'd entail Lager-like torturous labour, with possibly them stuck in their own urine and feces stained clothes, working on some menial task to pay for their up-keep. Or did you mean that it was their fault, but society should eat the cost all the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

The likes of not wearing a seat belt, or not wearing a helmet, affect the actual life/lives of the person/people who decide not to strap on the seat belt or don the helmet. The other person involved in the accident, whether they may have caused it or not, will be affected mentally (assuming they survive), but it's not the role of the government to create these 'just in case laws.'

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Do you mean harm the insurance company, or physically harm others? Because you mentioned the insurance companies, now you say 'harm others.' Oh and I can just as easily use the ':bulb:' smiley on you.

---

Like I said, the seatbelt law is not meant to make you protect yourself, it is meant to prevent you from financially harming others. Financial harm to others is no more allowed than physical harm to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Way to miss the point mister Wizard.

---

I thought I'd have a go at your style of debate: oversimplifications, exaggerations, and above all, presumptions.

Quote:

---

How the Hell do you expect a paralyzed person to shoulder the burden of their choice?

---

I expect the person, before they became paralysed, to have had enough sense to wear a seat belt, or not put themselves in any risk that could result in an accident (drinking etc).

Quote:

---

I would imagine that'd entail Lager-like torturous labour, with possibly them stuck in their own urine and feces stained clothes, working on some menial task to pay for their up-keep. Or did you mean that it was their fault, but society should eat the cost all the same?

---

If someone struck their car out of no where, then it's not their fault, however it was their reponsibility to have the seat belt on. But if they caused the accident and became paralysed, then yes it is entirely their fault.

Quote:

---

Why?

---

Because if I don't want to wear a seat belt, or a helmet, or anything else that is designed to protect my body, then it's my choice to do so. I'm not going to be forced by the government. I'm not going to endorse their "we know what's best for you" behaviour, because that opens the door to anything else that they give themselves the right to dictate, and the end result is the nanny state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Like I said, the seatbelt law is not meant to make you protect yourself, it is meant to prevent you from financially harming others. Financial harm to others is no more allowed than physical harm to others.

---

Fair enough. But it's not good enough to justify such laws. It's either one or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

If a Republican proposed this, it would be national news and the New York Times would wring its hands at the Republican "encroachment" on people's sex lives.

---

Umm, it is national news. Lewk, a Texan, posted text quoted from The Wall Street Journal, a national newspaper. Its also on this site called Reddit, a site on the world wide web, where people are wringing their hands at the Democrat "encroachment" on people's sex lives...so...I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world.

---

Alright, let me just sink this one right off the bat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

---

If you're going to lament about how the quote has lost its meaning in today's "Nanny State World", at least try to get it right. Note how he mentions essential liberty and temporary safety. If you think being able to not wear a seat belt is an essential liberty, and that being required to wear one under the penalty of a fine/losing your license to drive is only providing temporary safety, you're either insane, or have a horribly skewed view of what is an essential liberty and what temporary safety is.

Quote:

---

It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

If I'm going about my day, in a way where I do not pose any threat, nor harm to another individual, then what business does the government have to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?

---

The law isn't just to protect you its to protect other people too. I fail to see how you are not comprehending this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I never said I don't wear a seat belt (anyway it's illegal in the nanny state that has become Australia), I always do. If someone else doens't and they die as a result, or become paralised, then it's their responsbility. But if the accident was caused by some meth-head truck driver, then the blame is entirely on them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

If someone struck their car out of no where, then it's not their fault, however it was their reponsibility to have the seat belt on. But if they caused the accident and became paralysed, then yes it is entirely their fault.

---

If only we had some way for the goverment to tell others, like lawyers, insurance companies, the police, etc., who was responsible or in the wrong when someone incurs injury because they decided to not wear a seatbelt or helmet...


I'm sorry to everyone if any of this seems a bit disjointed or whatever, but apparently something called a scintillating scotoma is blocking part of my visual field and making it hard to read and focus. I'm mainly going on touch typing and looking off to the side of the screen. Also might have missed some other important replies, if they are there I'll get to them when this is over or tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Fair enough. But it's not good enough to justify such laws...

---

Apparently it is.

regardng seatbelts: only idiots don't wear them and only idiots agitate against laws that make wearing them mandatory.
regarding prostituion: outlaw as much as you want, eradication is impossible. So take control, mandate minimum norms and tax it. It's there so it might as well fill state-coffers rather than the pockets of slavers and other assorted criminals.

Quote:

---

If you're going to lament about how the quote has lost its meaning in today's "Nanny State World", at least try to get it right. Note how he mentions essential liberty and temporary safety. If you think being able to not wear a seat belt is an essential liberty, and that being required to wear one under the penalty of a fine/losing your license to drive is only providing temporary safety, you're either insane, or have a horribly skewed view of what is an essential liberty and what temporary safety is.

---

Ok I misquoted two words, do you feel better now? Anyway, I still think that his quote is valid in this situation. The message is still the same: giving up any liberty in exchange for safety, when your liberty shouldn't even be negotiable. I should have the choice as to whether I wish to wear a seat belt, it shouldn't be made by the government. The act of not wearing a seat belt, I will only harm myself physically, nobody else.

Quote:

---

The law isn't just to protect you its to protect other people too. I fail to see how you are not comprehending this.

---

Yeah I get it. I fail to understand how any one of you think that it's ok for the government to decide what's right for its citizens, yet I bet you also support the likes of same sex marriage. Kinda hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazy_Ivan80

regardng seatbelts: only idiots don't wear them and only idiots agitate against laws that make wearing them mandatory.
regarding prostituion: outlaw as much as you want, eradication is impossible. So take control, mandate minimum norms and tax it. It's there so it might as well fill state-coffers rather than the pockets of slavers and other assorted criminals.

---

Sure, but remember you're crazy Ivan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I thought I'd have a go at your style of debate: oversimplifications, exaggerations, and above all, presumptions.

---

Yes, so you said, but it seems you have not comprehended my response to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I expect the person, before they became paralysed, to have had enough sense to wear a seat belt, or not put themselves in any risk that could result in an accident (drinking etc).


If someone struck their car out of no where, then it's not their fault, however it was their reponsibility to have the seat belt on. But if they caused the accident and became paralysed, then yes it is entirely their fault.


Because if I don't want to wear a seat belt, or a helmet, or anything else that is designed to protect my body, then it's my choice to do so. I'm not going to be forced by the government. I'm not going to endorse their "we know what's best for you" behaviour, because that opens the door to anything else that they give themselves the right to dictate, and the end result is the nanny state.

---

So at the same time you are saying that it's a moral responsibility to wear the seat belt, but society cannot ask its members to do so because..."Nanny state"? This is the cognitive dissonance that you didn't want me assaulting before, maybe you should try not handing this kind of ammunition to your opponents.

You seem to agree with me that it is people other than the non-seat-belt-user who have to pay for his upkeep should his non-seat-belt-wearing life-style land him a cripple. Yes? Who exactly do you want to pay for their feeding and housing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

So at the same time you are saying that it's a moral responsibility to wear the seat belt, but society cannot ask its members to do so because..."Nanny state"?

---

It's their own responsibility to wear a seat belt. If they don't, and if they're involved in a car accident, they will only physically harm themsevles, nobody else. If the person values their life and doesn't want to put themselves at risk of death or injury, then it's in their interest to put the seat belt on. And society cannot and should not demand (not ask, since you're forced to in a country such as Australia) for reasons I've already stated.

Tell me, do you support abortion? Same sex marriage? If you say yes, then how can you support a law that forces people to do something against their will, yet support another that allows them to do what they want with their body/life? You're allowing the government to dictate what is 'right', and what is 'safe' for its citizens. Sure I'll agree that wearing a seat belt is the 'right' thing to do (but I'm not going to force random xyz person to do it), and the majority would agree. However the government has a known track record for dictating what else is right, or moral, and that is that it's 'wrong' to have an abortion, or it's 'wrong' for two people of the same sex to engage in a relationship, and so on.

Quote:

---

This is the cognitive dissonance that you didn't want me assaulting before, maybe you should try not handing this kind of ammunition to your opponents.

---

You keep on telling yourself that. But continue to twist my argument because it's interesting to read.

Quote:

---

You seem to agree with me that it is people other than the non-seat-belt-user who have to pay for his upkeep should his non-seat-belt-wearing life-style land him a cripple. Yes? Who exactly do you want to pay for their feeding and housing?

---

I never actually said that? Where did you get that impression from? Or are you just twisting my argument in your usual manner, so you can throw words like 'cognitive dissonance' at me?
I never said that 'people' should pay for the upkeep of someone who happens to become paralysed due to not wearing a seat belt in a car accident. I don't know who 'should', and I'm undecided on such an issue. Anyway I'm not discussing the funding of paralysed people due to not wearing a seat belt related accident.

You say that I don't understand your reponse(s), but I don't understand how you give yourself the right to endorse laws that take away peoples will, yet very likely support the likes of abortion or same sex marriage (unless you don't, then disregard this last sentence). What's it to you if some random person risks losing their life in a car accident because they decided not to wear a seat belt? Why do you care when it's their own life?

How am I supposed to respond when you say you won't acknowledge some portions of the conversation? You keep spouting the same fallacies over and over alright, but it is unclear what you expect from my side of the aisle. If you won't discuss the most crucial parts of the conversation, what are you discussing at all? rar rar me me me? Good job there.

And rights to abortion and same sex marriage are entirely different from the "right" of not having to wear a seat belt or not beating up faggots, but I'm aware how difficult angry Internet libertarians find this chasm.

Why is physical harm more important than financial harm, esp. given that you're behaving like a typical Randroid? Money's the end all be all of your existence, so long as it is your own. What right does the non-seat-belt-wearer have to rob you of some of that money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How am I supposed to respond when you say you won't acknowledge some portions of the conversation? If you won't discuss the most crucial parts of the conversation, what are you discussing at all?

---

I already have.

Quote:

---

And rights to abortion and same sex marriage are entirely different from the "right" of not having to wear a seat belt or not beating up faggots, but I'm aware how difficult angry Internet libertarians find this chasm.

---

So where do you draw the line, tell me?

Quote:

---

Why is physical harm more important than financial harm, esp. given that you're behaving like a typical Randroid? Money's the end all be all of your existence, so long as it is your own. What right does the non-seat-belt-wearer have to rob you of some of that money?

---

Because it's my own life? It's the life of the person next door, across the street, on the other side of the city? As for financial harm, I'm still not going to support a law because it's also protecting insurance companies/tax payers/whoever from paying the bill. I've already told you that I'm unsure on that matter, as to who should 'pick up the bill' for the blood and brains on the street, or the paralysed person (assuming they have no other means of support).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I'm still not going to support a law because it's also protecting insurance companies/tax payers/whoever from paying the bill.

---

And how is that a bad thing? You hate taxes, remember?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Ok I misquoted two words, do you feel better now? Anyway, I still think that his quote is valid in this situation. The message is still the same: giving up any liberty in exchange for safety, when your liberty shouldn't even be negotiable. I should have the choice as to whether I wish to wear a seat belt, it shouldn't be made by the government. The act of not wearing a seat belt, I will only harm myself physically, nobody else.

---

You're sitting IN A CAR! What "freedom" does your seatbelt actually restrict? NONE! Because you're sitting IN A CAR!

This is one of those hypothetical "freedoms" which don't actually exist in reality - because as soon as you sit in a car, you've confined yourself to the inside of a car already. What freedom do you lose due to seatbelts? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

A seatbelt does not hinder you from doing anything you can do without it. You can drive your car the same with or without it. There's absolutely NO practical reason not to wear one.

What exactly would a seatbelt hinder you from doing? I've got my driver's license for 15 years now and I can't imagine anything I'd need to do while I'm driving that my seatbelt would hinder me from doing. So, what is this "mythical" thing you're talking about here?

Oh, it's the freedom of choice? Well. So, let's see:
a) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you're caught by the police. You get a fine.
b) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you are killed in an accident. Your loved ones grieve, the guy who caused the accident faces manslaughter charges and because you were in a coma for two months you also racked up quite a debt.

So, here we have a choice with two possible outcomes. Only utter and complete morons would choose the latter willingly. I wonder about this callous and coldhearted regard towards their fellow humans - one of the guys even dares to call himself a Christian. The other one doesn't understand that leaving out two words can skew the meaning of a quote quite severely.

I'm disgusted. Sometimes I wonder why humanity has not solved the big problems yet, considering our knowledge. Then I read garbage like this and I know why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Ok I misquoted two words, do you feel better now? Anyway, I still think that his quote is valid in this situation. The message is still the same: giving up any liberty in exchange for safety, when your liberty shouldn't even be negotiable.

---

The quote doesn't say that. Those two words were important because they state essential liberty and temporary safety, not any liberty for safety...so no, the message is not the same...:bored:

If you want to argue your version of the quote, it allows for things like legalizing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, murder, theft, rape, etc. People don't have the liberty to do those things because the government has established that in order to keep people safe from them, those liberties should be taken away (or at least the people who exercise them should be imprisoned).

Quote:

---

I should have the choice as to whether I wish to wear a seat belt, it shouldn't be made by the government. The act of not wearing a seat belt, I will only harm myself physically, nobody else.

---

Is physical harm the crux of your argument? So as long as someone doesn't physically harm someone, theft should be legal? How about taking a piss on you, non-consensually? They haven't physically harmed you there.

Quote:

---

Yeah I get it. I fail to understand how any one of you think that it's ok for the government to decide what's right for its citizens, yet I bet you also support the likes of same sex marriage. Kinda hypocritical.

---

You do realize that murder being illegal is the government deciding what's right for its citizens, don't you?

This honestly goes back to when I said that your arguments aren't very well thought out.

Draco, practically all our roads and highways were built with tax-payer money. That means they're publicly owned, so the government has a right to make some rules, and a duty to enforce them.

The insurance industry lobbied for speed limit laws to reduce accidents, and legislators tied that to getting federal dollars for roads. They also lobbied for seat belt laws because that reduced accidents, injuries and deaths, which meant less claims to pay and more profit for the insurers. It could have been done as a stipulation by the insurance companies, but cops wouldn't have the ability to write revenue-gaining citations when there are no accidents. They were also successful in mandating auto insurance for all drivers.

The government can also legislate what's legally road-worthy. You can't just ride a go-cart down I-95 or drive your riding lawn mower on the turnpike. They can also fine you for driving a jalopy whose doors have fallen off, and the tailpipe is dragging....those things endanger other drivers. We have special laws that allow Amish horse-and-buggies to drive on roads if there's no shoulder, but they had to add battery operated head and tail lights, for others' safety. Those horse shoes really chop up pavement, and since the Amish don't pay gas tax or car tax (for repairing roads), I think they were required to register their buggies and pay a fee to the state.

If all that's a Nanny State, then consider Nessie's suggestion to live-off grid. Or a huge compound with your own private roads and no rules. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You're sitting IN A CAR! What "freedom" does your seatbelt actually restrict? NONE! Because you're sitting IN A CAR!

This is one of those hypothetical "freedoms" which don't actually exist in reality - because as soon as you sit in a car, you've confined yourself to the inside of a car already. What freedom do you lose due to seatbelts? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

A seatbelt does not hinder you from doing anything you can do without it. You can drive your car the same with or without it. There's absolutely NO practical reason not to wear one.

What exactly would a seatbelt hinder you from doing? I've got my driver's license for 15 years now and I can't imagine anything I'd need to do while I'm driving that my seatbelt would hinder me from doing. So, what is this "mythical" thing you're talking about here?

Oh, it's the freedom of choice? Well. So, let's see:
a) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you're caught by the police. You get a fine.
b) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you are killed in an accident. Your loved ones grieve, the guy who caused the accident faces manslaughter charges and because you were in a coma for two months you also racked up quite a debt.

So, here we have a choice with two possible outcomes. Only utter and complete morons would choose the latter willingly. I wonder about this callous and coldhearted regard towards their fellow humans - one of the guys even dares to call himself a Christian. The other one doesn't understand that leaving out two words can skew the meaning of a quote quite severely.

I'm disgusted. Sometimes I wonder why humanity has not solved the big problems yet, considering our knowledge. Then I read garbage like this and I know why.

---

If you can't trust people to do little things how do you support trusting people to do the big things? Honestly not having seat belt laws isn't going to change my life one bit. I use seat belt, I would use one even if it was not required.

However you seem to miss the point. The idea that the government has control over your very person and gets to choose *FOR* you is what I have a problem with. If you support the notion that government should have control over your body with simple tasks such as seat-belts what don't you want the government to control?

Far more people die from heart disease and lung cancer then they do from not wearing a seat belt. Do you also want the government to mandate what people eat? Mandate that they exercise? I'm sure you would. Because after all people must be led by big brother right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If you can't trust people to do little things how do you support trusting people to do the big things? Honestly not having seat belt laws isn't going to change my life one bit. I use seat belt, I would use one even if it was not required.

However you seem to miss the point. The idea that the government has control over your very person and gets to choose *FOR* you is what I have a problem with. If you support the notion that government should have control over your body with simple tasks such as seat-belts what don't you want the government to control?

Far more people die from heart disease and lung cancer then they do from not wearing a seat belt. Do you also want the government to mandate what people eat? Mandate that they exercise? I'm sure you would. Because after all people must be led by big brother right?

---

There is such a black and white disconnect here...it feels like I'm conversing with a grade schooler who just finished watching their first episode of School House Rock.

Supporting laws that protect people from others who want to act like morons, no matter how personal, does not mean you have to support the government controlling everything.
Selt belts save lives and money, and not just of the user. You don't see anyone here that supports seatbelts advocating that fast cars should be outlawed, or even RPM limited. Supporting emissions testing does not mean you support outlawing the top x% of polluters (even though the USA does that).
No one here (besides Rand) has supported outlawing smoking, but its still easy enough to support laws that protect the innocent from having to deal with 2nd hand smoke.
Its about the citizen's ability to make a personal, wise, decision about themselves and/or property. Drinking, smoking, guns, they all count. Seatbelts don't, because no one gets up in the morning and decides "hey, today I feel like T-Boning someone at that annoying intersection". You don't get to decide in the middle of an accident if you want to try out that government required seatbelt or not.

tl;dr:
Stop acting like an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

There is such a black and white disconnect here...it feels like I'm conversing with a grade schooler who just finished watching their first episode of School House Rock.

Supporting laws that protect people from others who want to act like morons, no matter how personal, does not mean you have to support the government controlling everything.
Selt belts save lives and money, and not just of the user. You don't see anyone here that supports seatbelts advocating that fast cars should be outlawed, or even RPM limited. Supporting emissions testing does not mean you support outlawing the top x% of polluters (even though the USA does that).
No one here (besides Rand) has supported outlawing smoking, but its still easy enough to support laws that protect the innocent from having to deal with 2nd hand smoke.
Its about the citizen's ability to make a personal, wise, decision about themselves and/or property. Drinking, smoking, guns, they all count. Seatbelts don't, because no one gets up in the morning and decides "hey, today I feel like T-Boning someone at that annoying intersection". You don't get to decide in the middle of an accident if you want to try out that government required seatbelt or not.

tl;dr:
Stop acting like an idiot.

---

The potential costs to society as a whole excluding the retards who don't wear seat belts is minimal. The costs cleaning up road kill pale compared to the costs of letting people smoke as we move into socialized health care. Or letting them eat unhealthy foods.

Freedom to do what you want when you want as long as you do not harm other people is what being a libertarian is all about. Potential harm or incidental harm such as the example of having society clean up road kill is an idiotic line to draw. With that rational you can justify any law.

Do I think you would be better off going to church every week? Sure. Do I want a law to mandate it? No. Do you think people would be better off wearing a seat belt? Sure. Do you want a law to mandate it? Yes. Do you see the difference? Freedom means letting people to stupid things to themselves. Draw a universal line in the sand. When is it acceptable to infringe upon people's rights to autonomy? Forget seat belts, forget my example of fatty foods. Set a principle on when it is OK to violate someone's freedom. That way I can provide you examples that would not be popular that fit that criteria and you can see how hypocritical your position is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

And how is that a bad thing? You hate taxes, remember?

---

I've never said that. I'm against taxes being used on unnecessary ventures, such as welfare (although I do recognise, and have mentioned in the previous topic, that there are situations where the person/people really have no where to turn to, but the government. I'm undecided there), 'free' healthcare, and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You're sitting IN A CAR! What "freedom" does your seatbelt actually restrict? NONE! Because you're sitting IN A CAR!

This is one of those hypothetical "freedoms" which don't actually exist in reality - because as soon as you sit in a car, you've confined yourself to the inside of a car already. What freedom do you lose due to seatbelts? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

A seatbelt does not hinder you from doing anything you can do without it. You can drive your car the same with or without it. There's absolutely NO practical reason not to wear one.

What exactly would a seatbelt hinder you from doing? I've got my driver's license for 15 years now and I can't imagine anything I'd need to do while I'm driving that my seatbelt would hinder me from doing. So, what is this "mythical" thing you're talking about here?

---

I know it seems like that, and I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, but, for me at least, it's the principle of our liberties that I'm arguing for. That is, every single citizen should have the freedom to do what they want with their life so long as their actions do not in any way pose a threat to another persons life/rights. By allowing the government to literally coerce us into wearing a seat belt, we've opened the door for anything else that they deem to be 'safe' or 'right' (not that wearing a seat belt isn't). And therefore, you end up with a system that forbids the likes of abortion, same sex marriage and other things that I won't get into. It's either one or the other, there should not be a fine line defining it all, according to what the government sees as 'appropriate' or 'safe' or 'moral' etc. It's these little things that amount to such a system.

Quote:

---

Oh, it's the freedom of choice? Well. So, let's see:
a) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you're caught by the police. You get a fine.
b) You choose not to wear a seat belt and you are killed in an accident. Your loved ones grieve, the guy who caused the accident faces manslaughter charges and because you were in a coma for two months you also racked up quite a debt.

---

Yeah I've already said that.

Quote:

---

So, here we have a choice with two possible outcomes. Only utter and complete morons would choose the latter willingly. I wonder about this callous and coldhearted regard towards their fellow humans - one of the guys even dares to call himself a Christian. The other one doesn't understand that leaving out two words can skew the meaning of a quote quite severely.

I'm disgusted. Sometimes I wonder why humanity has not solved the big problems yet, considering our knowledge. Then I read garbage like this and I know why.

---

But of course, you need the government to solve the 'big problems' hey? It's necessary to restrict certain liberties in order to guarantee a safe and harmonious state right? Thanks for inserting that subtle insult of yours, it says a lot about you. But here I'll have a go too, just to be 'fair': the reason why 'humanity' hasn't solved such problems, is because of people like you, and other left-wing types, who, when it comes down to it, have the audacity to say what another person should be doing with their life, with their property, with their body. I haven't read more abhorrent posts then what I've come by here, and you rank right up the top of my disgust. But anyway, why do you care so much? The Western world is on a good path towards your socialist paradise, it's just a matter of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

The quote doesn't say that. Those two words were important because they state essential liberty and temporary safety, not any liberty for safety...so no, the message is not the same...:bored:

If you want to argue your version of the quote, it allows for things like legalizing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, murder, theft, rape, etc. People don't have the liberty to do those things because the government has established that in order to keep people safe from them, those liberties should be taken away (or at least the people who exercise them should be imprisoned).

---

It allows for such things because that's how you want to interpret it to suit your argument, and if you've ever read any of my previous posts, you'd know that I support a persons complete right to their own life, so long as they don't pose a threat to another persons right to life.

Quote:

---

Is physical harm the crux of your argument? So as long as someone doesn't physically harm someone, theft should be legal? How about taking a piss on you, non-consensually? They haven't physically harmed you there.

You do realize that murder being illegal is the government deciding what's right for its citizens, don't you?

This honestly goes back to when I said that your arguments aren't very well thought out.

---

No actually, you're either not trying to understand my argument(s), or you don't read my posts very well. I've addressed such issues, I addressed them in the topic about the Christian hotel owners, which I remember you posting in, so it's obvious you either didn't read my posts there, or did, but find some sort of pleasure in showing how wrong I was because I misquoted two words. Only because it's the internet, so I'll make a crazy assumption and say that you don't have the confidence to do the same thing in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Draco, practically all our roads and highways were built with tax-payer money. That means they're publicly owned, so the government has a right to make some rules, and a duty to enforce them.

---

Of course, that's why speed limits and alcohol consumption are permissible, but not when it has to do with a persons property, such as a car.

Quote:

---

The insurance industry lobbied for speed limit laws to reduce accidents, and legislators tied that to getting federal dollars for roads. They also lobbied for seat belt laws because that reduced accidents, injuries and deaths, which meant less claims to pay and more profit for the insurers. It could have been done as a stipulation by the insurance companies, but cops wouldn't have the ability to write revenue-gaining citations when there are no accidents. They were also successful in mandating auto insurance for all drivers.

---

I'm not familiar the insurance industry lobbying for seat belt laws (although I agree with speed limit laws), and can see their reasoning behind it, but still don't agree with it. The average citizen, these days, is smart enough to know that wearing a seat belt increases your chances of survival during an accident.

Quote:

---

The government can also legislate what's legally road-worthy. You can't just ride a go-cart down I-95 or drive your riding lawn mower on the turnpike. They can also fine you for driving a jalopy whose doors have fallen off, and the tailpipe is dragging....those things endanger other drivers. We have special laws that allow Amish horse-and-buggies to drive on roads if there's no shoulder, but they had to add battery operated head and tail lights, for others' safety. Those horse shoes really chop up pavement, and since the Amish don't pay gas tax or car tax (for repairing roads), I think they were required to register their buggies and pay a fee to the state.

---

That's all fine by me, since the roads are owned by the government. As I stated before, any act that poses a threat to another persons life (or you own, as you mentioned driving a go-cart or lawn mower down a high way), should not be allowed. But if the roads were privately owned, then that would be a different story.

Quote:

---

If all that's a Nanny State, then consider Nessie's suggestion to live-off grid. Or a huge compound with your own private roads and no rules. ;)

---

Well I'd like to emigrate to America in the near future. It doesn't seem as bad as Australia in terms of nanny-stateness, although it's heading in the same direction sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I've never said that. I'm against taxes being used on unnecessary ventures, such as welfare (although I do recognise, and have mentioned in the previous topic, that there are situations where the person/people really have no where to turn to, but the government. I'm undecided there), 'free' healthcare, and such.

---

Are 'free' police, firemen and teachers permissible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The potential costs to society as a whole excluding the retards who don't wear seat belts is minimal.

---

but a cost exists. You're getting better.

Quote:

---

Freedom means letting people to stupid things to themselves.

---

So we aren't talking seat belts then. Which goes back to my original reply that only you would be stupid enough to try and relate these two very different concepts, seat belts and hookers, into any sort of relation.