06-16-2006, 10:31 AM
I don't know why you guys are so hard on him for making the comparison, it's hyperbole, but yes, that's a common way to make a point. Driving is to eating as helmet laws are to dieting. Nothing wrong with that statement. And we all agree he's right, the government should keep their hands off of us. The article was long winded, and was obviously aimed at people who would say "wow, I never done thought of that before!", that's all that was wrong with it.
This part brings up a question in my mind though. I think the government DOES have a lot of precedent in making laws governing the use of public highways. We have no right to drive, and just like the airline requiring a seatbelt when you're on their airline, I'm not sure our government is so out of place requiring one when on a highway they have control over.
I could see the argument that seatbelt and helmet laws are no diffferent than required automobile inspections, or the requirement that you pull over when a cop asks you to, or that you stop at a roadblock. Unlike our homes, the highway is theirs to police. In a wreck, if you aren't wearing a seatbelt, and get ejected into oncoming traffic, doesn't THAT put others in danger? Doesn't keeping the driver in his seat give him a better chance of regaining control of the car? The helmet law isn't quite a easy.... but, without a helmet, doesn't the added process of scooping up brains require further downtime on that section of highway? A little extreme, but if you look at the laws that way, then they are quite justifyable.
So I don't expect helmet and seatbelt laws to ever go away. You guys are bitching now, but wait until 50 years from now when our government passes a law saying human-piloted cars are banned on public roads.
hock:
mpg9999 Wrote:For example: It is entirely legitimate for an airline to require seat belt use on a commercial flight; you are, after all, riding on their airplane -- and if you get bounced out of your seat, you might cause injury to others, or endanger the aircraft. But such considerations do not apply to the private individual operating his privately owned automobile -- or on his motorcycle. If he gets hurt, only he gets hurt. Others are not affected. Ergo, the state has no justification to intervene.
This part brings up a question in my mind though. I think the government DOES have a lot of precedent in making laws governing the use of public highways. We have no right to drive, and just like the airline requiring a seatbelt when you're on their airline, I'm not sure our government is so out of place requiring one when on a highway they have control over.
I could see the argument that seatbelt and helmet laws are no diffferent than required automobile inspections, or the requirement that you pull over when a cop asks you to, or that you stop at a roadblock. Unlike our homes, the highway is theirs to police. In a wreck, if you aren't wearing a seatbelt, and get ejected into oncoming traffic, doesn't THAT put others in danger? Doesn't keeping the driver in his seat give him a better chance of regaining control of the car? The helmet law isn't quite a easy.... but, without a helmet, doesn't the added process of scooping up brains require further downtime on that section of highway? A little extreme, but if you look at the laws that way, then they are quite justifyable.
So I don't expect helmet and seatbelt laws to ever go away. You guys are bitching now, but wait until 50 years from now when our government passes a law saying human-piloted cars are banned on public roads.
hock:
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a van is a good guy with a van