And how is that a bad thing? You hate taxes, remember?Originally Posted by Draco
And how is that a bad thing? You hate taxes, remember?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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...
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).
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.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 do realize that murder being illegal is the government deciding what's right for its citizens, don't you?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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-28-2011 at 01:51 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
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.
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.
Yeah I've already said that.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.
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.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.
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.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...
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).
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Are 'free' police, firemen and teachers permissible?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
but a cost exists. You're getting better.
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.Freedom means letting people to stupid things to themselves.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not wearing seat belts only causes possible incidental harm to others (road kill/*maybe* insurance). Ditto with incident harm caused by choosing to eat too many fatty foods.
Hookers only cause possible incidental harm to others. (Moral fiber of society blather, maybe increase STD however an argument can be made that decriminalization actually makes that less likely.)
Hookers/seat belts/drug use/gambling are all in the same category. They are banned even though the people being harmed by the activity are the ones that are taking part in that activity.
Again the argument for "it costs more to clean up the mess" opens the door to mandating all sorts of behavior just because it could potentially cost less money. Hell under that premise you could outright ban motorcycles.
There's a lot of money out there that disagrees with you, hence the laws.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Maybe?
Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.
Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:
You're not talking about seatbelts here, really wish you would stay focused.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Ah, the precious principles. So, you're willing to let people DIE for your precious principles? Especially when faced with the fact that there's NO practical downside?
Principles are very nice and all. But the inability to bend or even break principles shows that you've got limited life experience. As far as I know you're quite young yet, so you'll probably did not have to face something like that yet, but there will come a point where two or more of your moral laws (or "principles") will stand in conflict with each other.
At that point you'll hopefully realize that principles are a nice thing to have - but applying them without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do.
That's why I try to be careful when talking about hypothetical situations - there will be always some detail which makes the whole thing completely different from the abstract thought experiment. That's why I'm using something like that more like a guideline - useful in most situations but still has to be evaluated for its usefulness in each and every one of them.
We had this same debate over here in Germany. Seat belts were not mandatory at first. Which meant that nearly no one used them and the number of deaths did not really go down. Then they promptly became mandatory and the number of deaths took a massive downswing.
Thus we can say that seat belts save lives. We also can say that they have no downsides.
In contrast, applying your "principles" would mean that people would be killed for no reason other than to support a "principle". And that's something you want?
Let me give you some food for thought: When an idea/principle/ideology becomes more important than the people it's actually intended for, then you'll have to worry. Because the same happened in Soviet Russia - the idea of socialism became more important than the people.
People on the backseat being flung into the people sitting in front of them comes to mind.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Too common without seat belts. What's also possible (though less likely) in a head on collission is someone flung from one vehicle into or through the windscreen of the other. Either way can result in death of someone other than the human projectile.
Your personal property [your car] has limits once you drive on a public road. Then you're interacting with other people, and they have a right to drive on a safe road.
It's not black and white---over the years we've seen how babies and children need special safety seats. Are you against a law mandating kids car seats in the privacy of your own car?
Using cell phones and texting while driving causes distracted drivers, and many accidents. Is it okay to ban hand-hell devices while driving in the privacy of your own car?
Sure, it's now common knowledge that seat belts save lives, and most folks use them automatically. Just in case, auto makers installed that irritating DING DING alarm until they're fastened. If you're involved in a car accident and someone is injured while not wearing a seat belt, insurance companies will fight in court to deny that personal injury / liability claim. Does it bother you that insurers have so much control over who pays the lifetime care of the quadriplegic?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.
Ooh, ooh, can we discuss drunk driving? That's always a laugh.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
So my owning a nuclear weapon is alright in Draco's version of the United States? I'm equally as likely to pose a threat to another person's right to life with a nuclear weapon as I am a firearm, which is no threat at all, since I'm a safe and responsible citizen, who will practice proper weapons handling and safe keeping, and will never try to violate any other person's safety with them.
Also, here is a fun scenario for you. We're both driving on a road in Draco's Land, USA. We're both doing about 55 MPH, and I'm in the lane to your left. I swerve in front of you and brake hard because I wasn't paying attention, and need to make a right on that street we're about to pass. You don't really have time to brake yourself, so you hit me going about 50. I, of course, was exercising my right to not wear a seat belt, and my right to deactivate my air bags. I'm now dead, strewn somewhere in between my seat, the hood of my car, and the road in front of it. When the police arrive, they'll be arresting you on possible manslaughter charges. Since I'm dead, and you're the cause of it.
If only we had some legal way to determine that it was actually I who was in the wrong for not wearing my seat belt, and for deactivating my airbags...
Of course its not you. Several people are just having the same problem with you because you're such an eloquent and clear speaker, with well-thought out, well-argued, water-tight ideas.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.
Consider this, your explanations weren't good there. They still aren't here. They don't get better with age, because they are text, not cheese or wine.
. . .
The law states that since Draco crashed into you from behind it would automatically be his fault and thus vehicular manslaughter. Wonder if Lewk would fry 'im?
Lewk would probably have him father children for his pastor to rape, or some such bestial thing.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Are you kidding me? If you want to frame it that way, then we always put a price on our freedoms. Whether we say you can't go 70mph if you want to in a residential area. Or we have other laws. They are a trade off agreed upon by the community you operate in. As they say absolute freedom isn't free. We gain more freedoms and consitency by agreeing to rules. The rules take into account the values and risks associated with actions of the people involved.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
So your right 35mph may save more lives, but we've agreed to up our chances of dying, as a society, in exchange for the benefit that driving 70mph offers us. It's an agreeable risk. If society deems it unagreeable on net, then it will be both illegal and immoral to drive that fast. Your placing people under a risk that they don't accept, it's their life your risking so they have entitlements.
I don't think he would fry him but that does bring interesting questions on, if we did make it optional, if that should be sufficient to constitute manslaughter. Or what if a person buys some lame small car and dies in the hit? But if you had hit a bigger car both would have lived. Is it really fair to penalize on the consequence of the action, as opposed to the statistically reasonable harm of the action? I guess on net it all levels out, but it's kinda lame to think for the same crime one person would face a heavy penalty another little by sheer luck. hmmmm...The law states that since Draco crashed into you from behind it would automatically be his fault and thus vehicular manslaughter. Wonder if Lewk would fry 'im?
Driving large trucks and SUV's can cause deaths too. Should we ban them? The likely chance of a person being flung from a vehicle to smash into another vehicle and kill someone that way is pretty far fetched. Might as well ban all nuclear power since something "might" happen.
Gee and I thought the OP was about brothels....
Which is why we have laws concerning how to drive, and who is in the wrong when collisions happen, etc.
. . .
Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?
People aren't dying for his precious principles, people are dying because they lack the intelligence, foresight, or will to buckle their seat belts, regardless of whether or not there is a law on the books.
To be frank it's not helpful to think of terms of freedom and not freedom, but rather it is better to think of terms of degrees and tradeoffs.Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?
I place the restirction on myself that I will not kill someone else for a certain exchange, they will do the same for me etc... and I openly and freely bind myself to this agreement, this restriction because of the benefits. That happens to be a inherantly immoral act, but some acts which aren't neccessarily inherantly immoral like the speed limit of a given street do become a moral issues when you've given your word to follow the speed limit, and are most definitely a legal issue when you've agreed to it and accepted to living in your community.
You did ignore everything I posted, did you? Yes, you did.
Once more, so you won't ignore it this time:
Germany, 1970s. Seatbelts not mandatory. No impact on death rates.
Germany, 1980s. Seatbelts mandatory. Huge impact on death rates.
Now, strangely enough, the law had an impact. With that in mind, I wonder how anyone in their right mind can spout drivel like "regardless of the law", when reality clearly shows otherwise.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Great. Now what does that have to do with what I posted? People aren't dying for his ideology, no matter how you hard you try to twist the argument to that effect. People are dying because they make bad choices.
Sure, laws can have impacts. There are any number of things you can ban that would probably save lives, starting with banning alcohol and ending with outlawing pointy sticks.Now, strangely enough, the law had an impact. With that in mind, I wonder how anyone in their right mind can spout drivel like "regardless of the law", when reality clearly shows otherwise.
The efficacy of a law exists outside of and apart from its morality.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-01-2011 at 11:30 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote