Child Seats, Safety Belts, Etc

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Fritz

how about we keep gay marriage and drugs out of this thread? Thanks.

I'd answer this just to be a dick, but I think the response back to me would be "let it go."

[Buccaneer]

I really wish I could've shaken your hand last year, Fritz, you are taking an admirable stand. In a sense, I agree with Subby in that in the reality of the govt abridging more and more of our freedoms and liberties (mainly in the interest of "public good" and "national security"), belt laws are one of many minor abridgements we allow. Where will this lead if a majority of us believe, not in personal responsibilities, but govt responsibilities to protect us from ourselves?

[Craptacular]

Let your kid go without a seatbelt, get in an accident, and make a big dent in the dashboard with his/her face. That'll teach 'em.







It worked for me.

[Fritz]

Perhaps this portion of a private excahnge between Subby and myself will better explain my point:

Originally Posted by Subby
Its a frustrating argument, because it is damn near impossible to argue that the government knows what is best for everyone. Because they obviously don't.

My reply
I guess it does not matter to me if they do [know whats best] (in many cases anyhow.) Every law we pass means the government owns a little part of you, and I don't like that. More importantly, I feel that every law we pass like the childseat thing is less that we expect from people. I think low expectations draw people away from ability. In the case of laws like this I think that it reduces the public's ability to do the right thing in other places. In that sence I think we are all injured by the laws. In my estimation the injury is severe. Not to say just the child seat law creates a grievous injury, but the mass of "we will tell you whats best" [or we will take care of everything] laws add together do.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Fritz

how about we keep my gay marriage and drugs out of this thread? Thanks.

You're right. We need to stop talking about your personal life.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by randal7

While it is your right to eat (be it McDonald's, twinkies, whatever) courts have ruled repeatedly that you have no right to drive on our nation's roads and highways. So, any requirement judged to be in the public interest can be inflicted on you (or me) before we are allowed to drive, without violating our rights (as long as it is universally applied).

You do, if you wish, have the right to drive on your own lawn (or other private property) without a seat belt if you so desire.

This is a pretty interesting point. Even though it springs from my too-casual use of the word "right" (when a word like "liberty" would have been more appropriate) it's still interesting to me.

Driving on public byways might be considered a privilege - and even most libertarians might concede that it's proper for those granting a privilege to place constraints onto it. Of course, a true libertarian might contest the need for any public roads to begin with... since of course private interests could have built the interstate highway system themselves and each homeowner would be glad to go out and pave 1500 square feet of roadway himself.

[Buccaneer]

QS, don't you think that a true libertarian nowadays would be more of a strict Constitutionalists, esp. in the 10th Amendment, than an anti-govt isolationist? Most of the early founders and framers spoke against a strong central power and instead, bring the power down to a more local level - but still in the hands of the govt. They witnessed first hand not only the tyrannical powers a distant central govt can bring but conversely, the ability of the Town Meetings and Burgesses to manage their own affairs locally. As a vocal and persistent libertarian, I rail against the federal govt but no so much against state and local govts (even though same state govts are getting that way). While the Feds built the interstate hwy system (I can concede that it was a good thing), they still gave the states the ability to maintain them. I don't go so far that nothing should be managed by the Feds - only what was specifically designated in the Constitution - with everything else being managed more locally (10th Amendment).