Reid Goes After Brothels

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts

[Lewkowski]

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts

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

[Illusions]

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.

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.

[Lewkowski]

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!!!!

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?

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!

[Ominous Gamer]

You do directly harm others

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.

[Illusions]

Source for how much that costs?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

[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.

[Veldan Rath]

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.

[Nessus]

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.

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

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.

[Draco]

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Being]

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.

[Nessus]

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.

[Draco]

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?

I like the cognitive dissonance here.

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

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.

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.

[Nessus]

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

Reading your posts hardly qualifies for presumptuous behaviour.

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.

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.

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.

[Being]

Right..so the ends justify the means then?

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

[Draco]

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?

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.

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.'

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

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 '' 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.

[Nessus]

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.

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?

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?

[Being]

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 '' 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.

[Draco]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[Illusions]

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Being]

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

Apparently it is.

[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.

[Draco]

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.

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.

[Being]

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.

[Nessus]

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.

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?

[Draco]

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.

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.

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?

[Nessus]

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?

[Draco]

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.

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?

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).