[thecavemaster]

Failure to wear them increases chances of astronomical cost to society. Thus, society has an interest in people wearing them. We do not exist alone. Self-reliance is good. Individuality is good. When taken to extremes of foolishness, both are a perversion of what it means to be free.

[congressman]

Failure to wear them increases chances of astronomical cost to society. Thus, society has an interest in people wearing them. We do not exist alone. Self-reliance is good. Individuality is good. When taken to extremes of foolishness, both are a perversion of what it means to be free.

As stated in another thread, I don't believe the government is trying to save your life.. or at least its not trying as hard as it can. I believe its about trying to solve a problem, and getting SOME results, and then boasting about them in an effort to look good. But if government solves everything, then it would be out of business. Much like we hear from some lunatic lefties who claim that big pharma uses this practice with medicine. Going as far as saying that they don't wanna find the cure for cancer, or aids, or even the common cold. Because it would eventually put them out of business. While possible, its doubtful. The government on the other hand, I find to be much more evil, and hellbent on keeping its role, as well as strengthening it.

For those who haven't noticed. I'm not a fan of the federal government.

[thecavemaster]

As stated in another thread, I don't believe the government is trying to save your life.. or at least its not trying as hard as it can. I believe its about trying to solve a problem, and getting SOME results, and then boasting about them in an effort to look good. But if government solves everything, then it would be out of business. Much like we hear from some lunatic lefties who claim that big pharma uses this practice with medicine. Going as far as saying that they don't wanna find the cure for cancer, or aids, or even the common cold. Because it would eventually put them out of business. While possible, its doubtful. The government on the other hand, I find to be much more evil, and hellbent on keeping its role, as well as strengthening it.

For those who haven't noticed. I'm not a fan of the federal government.

I am wary of the federal government, but I do not attribute it with the degree of apparent evil that you do. Again, the "government" is people, men and women, subject to mortality, prone to error, capable of heroism, strugglers along the path. Again, I am glad we have the Constitution and Bill or Rights... the right to debate these things and argue fiercely.

[Hoot Gibson]

I am strongly opposed to all seat belt laws for adults but support them for minors. I always wear a seat belt and so does anybody who wants to be my passenger. Let me agree to always wear a seatbelt in exchange for a lower insurance premium. If I renege on the bargain, then feel free to stick me with the entire cost of any medical treatment for injuries sustained in a wreck. If I am foolish enough to fail to wear a seatbelt, wreck, and I am unable to pay for life-saving treatment, then let nature take its course.

Conversely, if others want to pay much, much higher premiums for electing not to wear a seatbelt, then let them foot the bill for their foolishness.

I feel the same way about cigarettes and medical insurance. Why should anybody have to pay for another's risky lifestyle? If somebody wants to smoke, let them pay higher premiums for their elevated risk of a long list of potentially fatal diseases. If they lie to get lower premiums, then they should be on their own.

I have no right to hold a gun to anybody's head to make them pay for medical treatment or for any other consequences of my voluntary risky behavior. Neither does the federal government.

Whether the issue is seatbelts or the high cost of medical insurance, there is almost always better solutions to society's problems than more federal laws or unfunded federal mandates. Individual personal responsibility is the cheapest and most effective way to increase US citizen's quality of life. Having our federal government agree to pay for everybody's reckless behavior ensures that an increasing number of our citizens will throw caution to the wind. The one law that Congress follows consistently is the law of unintended consequences.

Although I oppose seatbelt laws for adults, I cannot understand how any legislator could support seatbelt laws and oppose motorcycle helmet laws. I guess motorcyclists just have better lobbyists than the rest of us.

:Thumbs: Congressman, as usual, I agree with nearly everything that you have said in your recent posts related to personal liberty and responsibility. Too often, our federal government takes a problem and makes it worse through legislation that seems well intentioned. Of course, we also get saddled with laws that are not passed in good faith as well. I am looking forward to gridlock following the 2010 elections.

[thecavemaster]

I am strongly opposed to all seat belt laws for adults but support them for minors. I always wear a seat belt and so does anybody who wants to be my passenger. Let me agree to always wear a seatbelt in exchange for a lower insurance premium. If I renege on the bargain, then feel free to stick me with the entire cost of any medical treatment for injuries sustained in a wreck. If I am foolish enough to fail to wear a seatbelt, wreck, and I am unable to pay for life-saving treatment, then let nature take its course.

Conversely, if others want to pay much, much higher premiums for electing not to wear a seatbelt, then let them foot the bill for their foolishness.

I feel the same way about cigarettes and medical insurance. Why should anybody have to pay for another's risky lifestyle? If somebody wants to smoke, let them pay higher premiums for their elevated risk of a long list of potentially fatal diseases. If they lie to get lower premiums, then they should be on their own.

I have no right to hold a gun to anybody's head to make them pay for medical treatment or for any other consequences of my voluntary risky behavior. Neither does the federal government.

Whether the issue is seatbelts or the high cost of medical insurance, there is almost always better solutions to society's problems than more federal laws or unfunded federal mandates. Individual personal responsibility is the cheapest and most effective way to increase US citizen's quality of life. Having our federal government agree to pay for everybody's reckless behavior ensures that an increasing number of our citizens will throw caution to the wind. The one law that Congress follows consistently is the law of unintended consequences.

Although I oppose seatbelt laws for adults, I cannot understand how any legislator could support seatbelt laws and oppose motorcycle helmet laws. I guess motorcyclists just have better lobbyists than the rest of us.

:Thumbs: Congressman, as usual, I agree with nearly everything that you have said in your recent posts related to personal liberty and responsibility. Too often, our federal government takes a problem and makes it worse through legislation that seems well intentioned. Of course, we also get saddled with laws that are not passed in good faith as well. I am looking forward to gridlock following the 2010 elections.

I see where you're coming from on the whole individual responsibility thing and all; however, would you at least admit that it could be argued with resonance that the State has a compelling interest in an adult wearing a seatbelt, given accident statistics and the tremendous cost (in life and real dollars) to society in such "no belt" cases?

[Wildcatk23]

Click It Or Ticket. Advertised and Paid For By The Wildcatk23 Foundation

[Hoot Gibson]

I see where you're coming from on the whole individual responsibility thing and all; however, would you at least admit that it could be argued with resonance that the State has a compelling interest in an adult wearing a seatbelt, given accident statistics and the tremendous cost (in life and real dollars) to society in such "no belt" cases?

The reason that the state has a compelling interest in adults wearing seatbelts is the system that the state has created. As long as the state is willing to use public funds to keep individuals from facing the consequences of their own reckless behavior, then you can make the case for all sorts of instances where the state has a compelling interest in depriving individuals of personal liberty.

The cost of the consequences of conscious decisions by individuals who ignore the statistical evidence that seatbelts save lives should be placed where it belongs - on the individuals making those decision. More people would be wearing seatbelts and fewer people would be dying in automobile accidents if the costs of not doing so were not distributed to taxpayers and large pools of insurance policy holders.

I want to buy a cheap policy that is null and void if I fail to wear a seatbelt and I am injured or killed in an accident. Why should we not have that option and why should we be paying any the costs for others who make a conscious decision to risk flying through their windshields in car crashes?

[thecavemaster]

The reason that the state has a compelling interest in adults wearing seatbelts is the system that the state has created. As long as the state is willing to use public funds to keep individuals from facing the consequences of their own reckless behavior, then you can make the case for all sorts of instances where the state has a compelling interest in depriving individuals of personal liberty.

The cost of the consequences of conscious decisions by individuals who ignore the statistical evidence that seatbelts save lives should be placed where it belongs - on the individuals making those decision. More people would be wearing seatbelts and fewer people would be dying in automobile accidents if the costs of not doing so were not distributed to taxpayers and large pools of insurance policy holders.

I want to buy a cheap policy that is null and void if I fail to wear a seatbelt and I am injured or killed in an accident. Why should we not have that option and why should we be paying any the costs for others who make a conscious decision to risk flying through their windshields in car crashes?

"Am I my brother's keeper?" ... so said Cain. It doesn't ALL boil down to money, though. The State has an interest in the welfare of the kids when the parents don't buckle. I realize the need for actions and consequences to be connected; however, I don't view life in society, or, in general, to be as exclusively individualistic as you do.

[Stardust]

I don't consistently wear a seatbelt, more the era that I grew up and obstinance. My children do wear them with no hesitation. I have no problems with with the law.

[Hoot Gibson]

"Am I my brother's keeper?" ... so said Cain. It doesn't ALL boil down to money, though. The State has an interest in the welfare of the kids when the parents don't buckle. I realize the need for actions and consequences to be connected; however, I don't view life in society, or, in general, to be as exclusively individualistic as you do.

With freedom comes responsibility. The government does not relieve its citizens of responsibility without taking some freedom in return. A free society allows its people to make decisions and learn from their mistakes.

The State's responsibility to children is to find them new homes if and when it becomes necessary. Otherwise, the welfare of children is best left to those children's parents.