[sanjuro]

NY Times: But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.

Rand Paul: I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

BTW, as the Huff Post points out it federal law for cars to have seat belts but it is state law which makes people wear them.

I think government is necessary for some things.

 

[Silver]

Water is wet.

 

[Pesqueeb]

I'm actually kind of in agreement with him here. I never go anywhere without putting mine on, or my kids. If someone wants to go through the windshield and break their necks in an otherwise survivable accident, I say let Darwin take over. I do believe it should be law for kids to be belted, but I say let the adult retard who wants to drive without one die. Lets face it, the only reason most states made it law is because it generates income. Same with motorcycle helmets. Colorado has no helmet law and I see lots of douchebags riding around without them, and its fvcking stupid not to. I choose to wear a helmet and when I got hit I'm absolutely sure it saved my life, which is why I still wear one. These retards want to ride their Hardley without one, I say the state should let them. It is a "nanny state" rule and its dumb.
I agree with you that government is needed for things like making the seat belts standard, but it should be up to the individual to use them IMHO.

 

[Westy]

The problem is someone else has to deal with your mutilated body if you don't wear a seatbelt. In situations where ones poor decisions place a burden on society or others something needs to be done about it. I'd be fine if people could choose not to wear seatbelts. Just give those that choose to do so special license plates or roof stickers that say "don't bother calling the paramedics". Folks who choose to help others don't need to see your decapitated corpse because you are too stupid to put a seatbelt on. Not to mention they are also more likely to survive a minor accident but have to go on disability.

Quite frankly I'd rather see those morons and their fat children removed from the gene pool. The problem is that their decisions affect more than their own well being.

The last person I knew that bitched about seatbelt laws was a customer of mine. In the same conversation he asked me to replace a motor we were selling him with one that output more horsepower but less torque at 1000 RPM. I tried explaining the relationship between Hp and torque for a given speed and he just told me I was trying to trick him. I'm obviously part of the liberal elite socialist cabal.

 

[Toshi]

The problem is someone else has to deal with your mutilated body if you don't were a seatbelt. In situations where ones poor decisions place a burden on society or others something needs to be done about it. I'd be fine if people could choose not to wear seatbelts. Just give those that choose to do so special license plates or roof stickers that say "don't bother calling the paramedics". Folks who choose to help others don't need to see your decapitated corpse because you are too stupid to put a seatbelt on. Not to mention they are also more likely to survive a minor accident but have to go on disability.

Quite frankly I'd rather see those morons and their fat children removed from the gene pool. The problem is that their decisions affect more than their own well being.

The last person I knew that bitched about seatbelt laws was a customer of mine. In the same conversation he asked me to replace a motor we were selling him with one that output more horsepower but less torque at 1000 RPM. I tried explaining the relationship between Hp and torque for a given speed and he just told me I was trying to trick him. I'm obviously part of the liberal elite socialist cabal.

Amen.

If cars had spikes that instantly killed the unbelted driver in an accident and simultaneously waived liability to all other parties involved then it'd be a personal decision. As it is now the taxpayer (or fellow insurance holders, if insured) picks up the bill when Joe Sixpack plasters himself over the ground but fails to off himself.

 

[greengreer]

I don't think this has much at all to do with seatbelts, really it is a matter of principle. Ron Paul believes that the government should be uninvolved in any such matter concerning what an individual does to them self. If it doesn't bother anyone else than it is not for the government to decide.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disbelieves the effectiveness of seatbelts, but in the eyes of a libertarian, if the wearing of seatbelts is government mandated then where does it stop?
Seems like a trivial attack on the mans character, besides why get in the way of natural selection- let the idiots kill themselves.

 

[kidwoo]

If it doesn't bother anyone else than it is not for the government to decide.

Which is exactly why he's an idiot for choosing that example.


People splattered in cars IS a bother for other people.

 

[amishmatt]

BTW, as the Huff Post points out it federal law for cars to have seat belts but it is state law which makes people wear them.

I think government is necessary for some things.

Yeah, except that states get strong-armed into passing seat belt laws in order to receive federal funds for highways. Not that I disagree with seat belt laws (only the inconsistency between them and helmet laws), just that it isn't really much of a "choice" for a state.

 

[Pesqueeb]

The problem is someone else has to deal with your mutilated body if you don't wear a seatbelt. In situations where ones poor decisions place a burden on society or others something needs to be done about it. I'd be fine if people could choose not to wear seatbelts. Just give those that choose to do so special license plates or roof stickers that say "don't bother calling the paramedics". Folks who choose to help others don't need to see your decapitated corpse because you are too stupid to put a seatbelt on. Not to mention they are also more likely to survive a minor accident but have to go on disability.

I understand this portion of the argument, and I agree that it is unfair to society as a whole. Perhaps the law should instead read that if your not belted (or wearing a helmet) no medical assistance will be provided, and your insurance has a right to deny your claim. I guess my bigger issues here is that I fail to see why someone else (the government in this case) is supposed to take on what should be your personal responsibility. I'm pretty sure in fact, that the whole idea of personal responsibility is an endangered species so I say let those without it be cut from the herd. People need to learn that actions, or inaction in the case of a seat belt or helmet, have consequences, sometimes huge ones. But maybe I'm just a hard ass.

*edit. I'm also in agreement with amish matt here, why the inconsistency between belt laws and helmet laws? You cannot justify one without the other IMHO.

 

[amishmatt]

...I'm pretty sure in fact, that the whole idea of personal responsibility is an endangered species so I say let those without it be cut from the herd. People need to learn that actions, or inaction in the case of a seat belt or helmet, have consequences, sometimes huge ones. But maybe I'm just a hard ass...

If only it worked that way.

It would work if these people were actually left to suffer the consequences of their own actions (or, inactions). But as Westy pointed out, that doesn't happen. The dumbasses that should be left for dead because they didn't wear their seat belt end up getting the same level of care that the rest of the responsible folks do, and we all pay for it.

How have insurance companies not latched onto this as a way to deny claims yet?

 

[ohio]

Perhaps the law should instead read that if your not belted (or wearing a helmet) no medical assistance will be provided, and your insurance has a right to deny your claim.

Except then you have the same problem as our current healthcare system. Medical personnel have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide care. You can't have the equivalent of a DNR for someone with a compound tib fracture, screaming in conscious pain. Beyond that, if they're not insured, society will just end up paying for them.

Really, the pain and flying through a windshield and being a vegetable is some pretty solid punishment. If people are too stupid to see that in advance and act as a result, I'd still rather they have private insurance that covers them.

 

[sanjuro]

I think it comes back to common sense.

If I thought seat belts were a violation of your liberty, if I thought wearing a helmet was cruel and unusual punishment, I wouldn't recommend it.

But it is not. It does seem like common sense to use both though, given how easy it is to use and how much it improves your chances in a crash.

 

[jonKranked]

Except then you have the same problem as our current healthcare system. Medical personnel have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide care. You can't have the equivalent of a DNR for someone with a compound tib fracture, screaming in conscious pain. Beyond that, if they're not insured, society hill just end up paying for them.

I actually brought up this point the other day when discussing this with someone who was ranting against socialized healthcare. They were completely clueless to the fact that they are already paying for medical procedures for the uninsured.


On a quasi-related topic. Earlier today I got someone backed into a corner using the public school argument. They were railing against "socialist" health care. I inquired as to how they felt about public schools, their response: one of the best things that has ever happened. Then I broke it down as to how they are virtually identical. I could almost hear the delusions in the guy's brain shattering.

 

[kidwoo]

I could almost hear the delusions in the guy's brain shattering.

Nah.

that was the sound of him plotting your death

 

[goofy]

I actually brought up this point the other day when discussing this with someone who was ranting against socialized healthcare. They were completely clueless to the fact that they are already paying for medical procedures for the uninsured.

I have used this in debates with family members and they don't get it. They believe the government pays for the uninsured, and can't seem to understand that even if that was the case that means they are still paying for the uninsured with taxes.

On another note I had a debate with a family member today and he swore his taxes would be paying for the health care, he makes less than 25,000 a year. The worst part is he's on the upper end of the I.Q. bell curve.

 

[greengreer]

Which is exactly why he's an idiot for choosing that example.


People splattered in cars IS a bother for other people.

Yea but since when does writing it into law magically make people wear their seat belts?

People are going to do stupid things regardless of the legality. Would we see an increase in traffic accident related deaths? Yea, most likely, until your insurance company mandated it to keep your coverage.

Seat belt legislation is a trivial way to exemplify a very decent principle, especially when there are much larger fish to fry...

 

[jonKranked]

Nah.

that was the sound of him plotting your death

Nah, I forgot to mention the blank deer in a headlights confused stare that accompanied it.

 

[MikeD]

The government can't mandate you wear a seat belt in general.

The government--your fellow citizens' representatives--CAN mandate you wear a seat belt when using a road that everyone paid for using shared tax money.

Individualism's great, but you didn't build that road yourself, Ron.

 

[MikeD]

Yea but since when does writing it into law magically make people wear their seat belts?

ummm, you might wanna take a look at how many people wore seat belts when it wasn't a law in a particular place, and how many wear them now, where it is a law.

I'm not saying a law prohibits bad behavior...no law does...but do you think people would all drive the same speed as they do now if there was no speed limit?

(Believe me, I'm the one arguing that gun control doesn't affect criminals already inclined to murder people...because I can see that counter brewing in your head...but this isn't exactly the same thing. You're arguing that if murder was legal, people wouldn't shoot each other more regularly.)

 

[Silver]

Individualism's great, but you didn't build that road yourself, Ron.

This is Rand, Ron's dickhole son.

 

[kidwoo]

Yea but since when does writing it into law magically make people wear their seat belts?

People are going to do stupid things regardless of the legality. Would we see an increase in traffic accident related deaths? Yea, most likely, until your insurance company mandated it to keep your coverage

It's not magic, it's fear of penalty. I don't know what it's like in north carolina these days but in california and hawaii, you CAN and people DO get pulled over for not wearing seatbelts. So yes, having that on the books has worked. Click it or ticket programs get people to wear seatbelts.

Seat belt legislation is a trivial way to exemplify a very decent principle, especially when there are much larger fish to fry...

I agree, most things about the paul family are trivial.

What's that very decent principle btw? 'git yer gubbermint hands offah mah (fill in the blank)?' What people like paul don't realize is that government non intervention was the default at the beginning of every civilization every born. We've evolved. And we've also hit most intermediate stages along the way.

 

[the desmondo]

It's not magic, it's fear of penalty. I don't know what it's like in north carolina these days but in california and hawaii, you CAN and people DO get pulled over for not wearing seatbelts. So yes, having that on the books has worked. Click it or ticket programs get people to wear seatbelts.



I agree, most things about the paul family are trivial.

What's that very decent principle btw? 'git yer gubbermint hands offah mah (fill in the blank)?' What people like paul don't realize is that government non intervention was the default at the beginning of every civilization every born. We've evolved. And we've also hit most intermediate stages along the way.

I don't think Paul's' advocates no government. Simply a smaller one.

 

[kidwoo]

I don't think Paul's' advocates no government. Simply a smaller one.

........say........right about neanderthal times from what I can tell.

 

[worship_mud]

Perhaps the law should instead read that if your not belted (or wearing a helmet) no medical assistance will be provided, and your insurance has a right to deny your claim.

if i had to choose who is to regulate such matters i'd choose federal government over insurance companies - anytime!

i'd hate to lie in hospital and have a greasy insurance dude telling me, that i'm going to be ass-r*ped by them and that i can file for bankruptcy, after they wiped their d*cks off...

 

[chicodude]

People splattered in cars IS a bother for other people.

Yeah, no ****, it's pretty gross. Less work though.


That being said I got two seatbelt tickets last year within a two month span. One was tryign to tag me with a dui in an area with alot of them, and the other was bull****

 

[greengreer]

ummm, you might wanna take a look at how many people wore seat belts when it wasn't a law in a particular place, and how many wear them now, where it is a law.

I'm not saying a law prohibits bad behavior...no law does...but do you think people would all drive the same speed as they do now if there was no speed limit?

(Believe me, I'm the one arguing that gun control doesn't affect criminals already inclined to murder people...because I can see that counter brewing in your head...but this isn't exactly the same thing. You're arguing that if murder was legal, people wouldn't shoot each other more regularly.)

Personally I think law like speed-limits and mandating seatbelt usage are good things and to some degree effective. It's not a cure all but I am sure there are a lot of idiots who only buckle up for fear of paying a fine.
What I was arguing was that for a principled Libertarian, there are better ways for accomplishing these means than outlawing it. Oh and speed-limits are a bit different because it involves protecting peoples safety from others, not protecting you from yourself.

No way in hell would I think of bringing up 2nd amendment talk to this topic (although I can see what you're driving at). It's far too sticky and isn't related very much at all to this. In an effort to not burn bridges, it sounds like we are very much in agreement on that issue.

Ultimately it is like helmet laws, the main argument for which is "when some idiot on two wheels (be it bike or motorcycle) splits their skull open and doesn't have insurance the rest of us are left holding the bill"
True. But I think the problem for us isn't the idiot grinding his head into the pavement, it's the fact that we have to pay because he's and idiot. If you want to do stupid things to yourself, go for it- just don't expect a handout from people who made better decisions. If you feel sympathy for these fools than start a charity. It shouldn't be up to the government to cover everyone's a$$.

 

[kidwoo]

Ultimately it is like helmet laws, the main argument for which is "when some idiot on two wheels (be it bike or motorcycle) splits their skull open and doesn't have insurance the rest of us are left holding the bill"
True. But I think the problem for us isn't the idiot grinding his head into the pavement, it's the fact that we have to pay because he's and idiot. If you want to do stupid things to yourself, go for it- just don't expect a handout from people who made better decisions. If you feel sympathy for these fools than start a charity. It shouldn't be up to the government to cover everyone's a$$.

You want to rely on a volunteer 'cleanup' club to get the mess out of the street?

 

[Pesqueeb]

You want to rely on a volunteer 'cleanup' club to get the mess out of the street?

Hell why not. The city I live in is already relying on people to "volunteer" to mow the city parks and pick up the trash since the water for the grass got cut off and all the trash cans got pulled to "save money". Just think how much money Colorado Springs could save by shelving the Fire Department and relying on volunteer's to extract accident victims and clean the blood off the streets. Maybe you could get a jury duty exemption for scraping a brain off the road. Its a win-win!

 

[kidwoo]

Ha ha


You live in ted haggard's town

 

[MikeD]

Oh and speed-limits are a bit different because it involves protecting peoples safety from others, not protecting you from yourself.

The point's not that one's as good as the other, it's the effects that laws have on human behavior. You made a bull**** argument that seatbelt laws don't have the effect of making people wear their seatbelts, when by and large, they most certainly do.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Ha ha


You live in ted haggard's town

Just down the road from Focus on the Family. And people wonder why I have so much anger.

 

[greengreer]

You want to rely on a volunteer 'cleanup' club to get the mess out of the street?

Sheeit- Buzzard's gotta eat, same as everyone else

MikeD: I don't think that anywhere in my convoluted arguments did I say that seat belt laws are ineffective. In fact I believe I said they work, not perfectly but they work. I am simply arguing the need for law vs. other means of accomplishing the same ends.

Isn't this fun?

 

[kidwoo]

Yea but since when does writing it into law magically make people wear their seat belts?

People are going to do stupid things regardless of the legality.

I don't think that anywhere in my convoluted arguments did I say that seat belt laws are ineffective.

That sure didn't sound like that's what you were saying.

 

[greengreer]

^^Wow, you can copy paste. I am impressed.^^

 

[kidwoo]

^^Wow, you can copy paste. I am impressed.^^

I can also coherently convey thoughts in english, which seems to be giving you some trouble.

 

[MikeD]

MikeD: I don't think that anywhere in my convoluted arguments did I say that seat belt laws are ineffective.

Yea but since when does writing it into law magically make people wear their seat belts?

Sure sounds like you're questioning their effectiveness there.

 

[kidwoo]

Sure sounds like you're questioning their effectiveness there.

Aw dude.....you wouldn't believe it! Me n' him just went through this. I did the same thing!

I was all like "but here's what you said earlier"


Then he's like all "good for you big boy, you can use the internet"


But man I was just trying to show him where he said what he didn't!

So just a head's up, he's gonna get all poofy and say something stupid.