Click it or ticket - Oh my gawd! They really DO care!

[wiegeabo]

The first rule in the California drivers handbook is:

"Driving is a privilege, not a right!"


Yes, you have a right to freedom of movement. That's why you have feet. But driving is not a right, even if you bought the car. Sure you can use personal property as you see fit on private land. If you want to drive without a license or insurance, fine. But on public land, where you decisions and abilities effect and can harm others, the government has the right to control things as given to them by the people.


Also, there's no such thing as absolute morals or rights. They're all made up and enforced by man. That's why different societies have different rules and morals, often some that conflict with others, and the fact that those rules can be changed further make the point. All the 'rights' guaranteed by the Constitution could be thrown out if a new Constitutional Convention was convened and a new law of the land drafted. All the word 'right' means is that all people are given equal access to the list of rights. But what goes into that list is purely subjective.

 

[StorminNorman]

He was, because if it weren't for our intellect, we wouldn't have survived this long. We aren't particularly large, strong, or fast, nor do we have claws and fangs and poison barbs. Humanity had to evolve larger brains to survive, which then caused reproductive problems that led to the formation of stronger social groups and so forth.

But we're not talking about being intelligent, or reasoning being at the same level as Homo sapiens, we're talking about two things: One, that humanity is subject to the same threats that all species are and that the deaths of a few are meaningless so long as the species survives, and two, that non-human animals are very likely to have reasoning capabilities as they arose in our species.

Mankind thrives best in an individualist society. For example, if Sentinel isn't allowed to drive because he broke an arbitrary law - then he is deprived of the benefits that come with such movement. That means Sentinel's ability to improve himself (or society with his labor) is reduced. That is harmful for society and, as such, the species.

 

[SuperFerret]

Mankind is ridiculously bloated due to the individualistic society that has formed. Disease and starvation run rampant, war is far more common with us than it is in any other species, and worse yet, those practices that favor the individual are slowing the evolutionary process in our species.

 

[StorminNorman]

The first rule in the California drivers handbook is:

"Driving is a privilege, not a right!"


Yes, you have a right to freedom of movement. That's why you have feet. But driving is not a right, even if you bought the car. Sure you can use personal property as you see fit on private land. If you want to drive without a license or insurance, fine. But on public land, where you decisions and abilities effect and can harm others, the government has the right to control things as given to them by the people.


Also, there's no such thing as absolute morals or rights. They're all made up and enforced by man. That's why different societies have different rules and morals, often some that conflict with others, and the fact that those rules can be changed further make the point. All the 'rights' guaranteed by the Constitution could be thrown out if a new Constitutional Convention was convened and a new law of the land drafted. All the word 'right' means is that all people are given equal access to the list of rights. But what goes into that list is purely subjective.

A piece of literature produced by the State contends that THEY decide who can and cannot drive? Well then it must be true!

Public law is paid for individuals like Sentinel. It's a bad law. If Sentinel doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, he doesn't hurt anyone besides himself. To deprive Sentinel of a resource that he has helped pay for is, I contend, immoral.

 

[StorminNorman]

Mankind is ridiculously bloated due to the individualistic society that has formed. Disease and starvation run rampant, war is far more common with us than it is in any other species, and worse yet, those practices that favor the individual are slowing the evolutionary process in our species.

War is anti-individualistic. It relies upon a collective notion of nations.

 

[SuperFerret]

War is actually one of the better results and actually serves to help solve the problem at hand. It's a result of there being too many humans and too little space.

 

[StorminNorman]

War is actually one of the better results and actually serves to help solve the problem at hand. It's a result of there being too many humans and too little space.

In a liberal society that would not be a problem. The failures of mankind don't stem from individualism but a lack of individualism and reason.

 

[wiegeabo]

Is the law really arbitrary if it's designed to protect him and others, and keep them healthy, productive members of society.

Others is the key word. If the actions don't effect others, then he should be able to do whatever he wants. Like my old philosophy professor said "If I want to ride around my living room on a Harley, blasting speed metal from my stereo, with a bottle of Jack in one hand, and a kilo of coke in the other, I should be allowed to do it... a long it doesn't hurt anyone else.


The arguments about how wearing a seatbelt protects others is technically correct, it has happened where not wearing one has harmed other people. But the circumstances are so specific and hard to replicate, it's on the verge of reaching. The problem is, in the instances it does happen, the person not wearing the belt is killed...what then? What do the injured do?

 

[SuperFerret]

In a liberal society that would not be a problem. The failures of mankind don't stem from individualism but a lack of individualism and reason.

The failures of mankind stem from overpopulation stemming from the very individual-oriented medical field.

 

[wiegeabo]

Mankind is ridiculously bloated due to the individualistic society that has formed. Disease and starvation run rampant, war is far more common with us than it is in any other species, and worse yet, those practices that favor the individual are slowing the evolutionary process in our species.

If anything, individualism promotes the evolutionary process by forcing people to adapt to situations, prepare for the future, and better themselves.

It's government bailing out people and businesses that hold back the evolutionary process by not allowing it to weed out the weak. Now, since cooperation does help a species as a whole survive, and even the best preparation for bad situations can fail (and because we've decided it's the humane thing to do), government does help people out. And there's really nothing wrong with helping people get back on their feet. But the addiction to things like long term entitlements and handouts are becoming a crushing pressure.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

That's the most obvious example. Personally I find it immoral to take money from a man to pay for roads (since roads are paid for via taxes) and then aribtrarily restrict a man from using them.


Now CAN a State do that? Absolutely. Again, I CAN kill you if I want to.

Is either right? No.

Just because a State acts in a certain way does not mean it should act in a certain way.

There's no point arguing with a pig-headed libertarian. Keep not wearing your seatbelt. Some day you'll learn your lesson the hardway.

 

[StorminNorman]

Is the law really arbitrary if it's designed to protect him and others, and keep them healthy, productive members of society.

Others is the key word. If the actions don't effect others, then he should be able to do whatever he wants. Like my old philosophy professor said "If I want to ride around my living room on a Harley, blasting speed metal from my stereo, with a bottle of Jack in one hand, and a kilo of coke in the other, I should be allowed to do it... a long it doesn't hurt anyone else.


The arguments about how wearing a seatbelt protects others is technically correct, it has happened where not wearing one has harmed other people. But the circumstances are so specific and hard to replicate, it's on the verge of reaching. The problem is, in the instances it does happen, the person not wearing the belt is killed...what then? What do the injured do?

If there was an actual argument that could be made in regards to not wearing a seatbelt harming others - then I would concede that you can make an argument. But I reject that idea and the law is not in place for that reason. It is put in place to protect the individual - and the State shouldn't mandate an individual to take care of him/herself.

 

[StorminNorman]

There's no point arguing with a pig-headed libertarian. Keep not wearing your seatbelt. Some day you'll learn your lesson the hardway.

I wear my seatbelt. Because the benefits to seatbelts aren't arbitrary. I do it to protect myself, not to comply with a law. I have been known to run poorly placed stop lights at 3:00 am, for example.

 

[StorminNorman]

The failures of mankind stem from overpopulation stemming from the very individual-oriented medical field.

I do think there is an argument that can be made for that, but the problem is who decides who is wrong in extending their life?

 

[SuperFerret]

If anything, individualism promotes the evolutionary process by forcing people to adapt to situations, prepare for the future, and better themselves.

Behavioral and social evolution isn't the cause of the problem here, because I'm talking physical evolution. The problem (evolutionarily speaking) is granting every individual the right to breed, despite whatever defects they have. It's cold, it's cruel, but it's absolutely a huge factor in the ******ation of human evolution.

 

[SuperFerret]

I do think there is an argument that can be made for that, but the problem is who decides who is wrong in extending their life?

Nobody should. Obviously, it was previously decided randomly, either you survived long enough to breed or you didn't. Now, it's difficult and the ideas and biases of men are too directed to truly be random, that's why there's no solution that we can (or should) seek out.

War is a good way to help control the human population, and it won't ever stop, but it weeds out the physically fit, instead of the weak, so that's an issue. Genocide is too biased and arbitrary to be anywhere near an acceptable means of cutting the population. Really, we have to just wait for a natural disaster (or a manmade mistake that is as undirected and random as one). It'll come soon enough. I feel as if our 7 billion + is reaching a sort of critical mass.

 

[wiegeabo]

Behavioral and social evolution isn't the cause of the problem here, because I'm talking physical evolution. The problem (evolutionarily speaking) is granting every individual the right to breed, despite whatever defects they have. It's cold, it's cruel, but it's absolutely a huge factor in the ******ation of human evolution.

That's not individualism. That's societal interference. If we're talking purely physical (genetic) evolution, it's society that says that every life is special and needs to be protected at all costs. In a purely individualist society, those people would have to fend for themselves or die off, taking their corrupted genes with them, and promoting a balanced population.

And I agree, society is protecting the individual to the point where it threatens the species. We're offloading evolution's long term work onto technology to enjoy faster gains. And I'm speaking as one of the people with a defect. Rightfully, with my asthma, I probably should not have lived long enough to spread the gene to offspring. It's only medical advancements that give me a normal life.

 

[bell110]

How dare people decide what to do with their own bodies.

Seriously, $140 is a little much for such a stupid infraction. And really, that's more of a "let's build revenue for the county", than "let's help protect our citizens".

 

[Marvolo]

A piece of literature produced by the State contends that THEY decide who can and cannot drive? Well then it must be true!

Public law is paid for individuals like Sentinel. It's a bad law. If Sentinel doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, he doesn't hurt anyone besides himself. To deprive Sentinel of a resource that he has helped pay for is, I contend, immoral.

Sorry, but no. An unbuckled body becomes a projectile during a wreck. He could bounce around the cabin killing other passengers or he could go through one of the windows into traffic causing another accident. Anyone who has taken a drivers safety course of been in an accident knows this. The only way he would have the undeniable right to not wear a seatbelt is if he had total controle of his body during a wreck which no human being has the ability to do. This is scientific fact, and while rare both these instances do happen. He needs to buckle up or stay off the road. I don't want to have to live with the guilt of running his idiotic ass over because he flew out of his windshield during a wreck and I ran him over. Oh and here is a video demonstrating this. Had someone been in the backseat they would have been crushed.
[YT]2SWAG6mqXXQ[/YT]

 

[chaseter]

Why aren't kids in school buses forced to wear seatbelts? That is 50 projectiles right there.

What about motorcycles? They aren't forced to wear helmets or seatbelts. So they are a projectile as well.

Yes seat belts save lives. No one is questioning that. But that video doesn't prove anything other than that fact. The government isn't in the business of saving individual lives or else there would be a plethora of laws on the books governing how we should live our lives. No fast food, exercise daily, no foods/drinks with artificial sweeteners or phosphoric acid, no smoking, etc. I mean look at smoking. It is a fact that smoking causes cancer. Why hasn't the government banned smoking? Hell, I bet more people kill other people because they were drunk behind the wheel than becoming a projectile and killing a passenger or torpedoing out the window and killing someone else. So, why hasn't the government banned alcohol?

 

[WildcatNC]

Why aren't kids in school buses forced to wear seatbelts? That is 50 projectiles right there.

What about motorcycles? They aren't forced to wear helmets or seatbelts. So they are a projectile as well.

Yes seat belts save lives. No one is questioning that. But that video doesn't prove anything other than that fact. The government isn't in the business of saving individual lives or else there would be a plethora of laws on the books governing how we should live our lives. No fast food, exercise daily, no foods/drinks with artificial sweeteners or phosphoric acid, no smoking, etc. I mean look at smoking. It is a fact that smoking causes cancer. Why hasn't the government banned smoking? Hell, I bet more people kill other people because they were drunk behind the wheel than becoming a projectile and killing a passenger or torpedoing out the window and killing someone else. So, why hasn't the government banned alcohol?

They just ignore it when you bring up the ridiculous implications of their arguments. I don't think they understand it. Sheeple are sheeple I suppose. They have no capacity or interest in getting it unfortunately.

 

[wiegeabo]

Why aren't kids in school buses forced to wear seatbelts? That is 50 projectiles right there.

School buses are a very different beast to cars and other vehicles. Buses have several safety features not found in other vehicles, not to mention their sheer height and weight making them able to absorb impacts better. School buses are already much safer than traveling in other vehicles (more kids are killed entering/exiting school buses than actually riding in them). In 1998 (latest stat I could find in just a couple of minutes of searching), only 11 kids were killed in a schoolbus that year, as opposed to 47,000 total traffic deaths. How much lower can it go?

Even if they all did have seatbelts, the trick would be getting the kids to use them in the first place.

(arguments for and against)
http://life.familyeducation.com/school/safety/36260.html

What about motorcycles? They aren't forced to wear helmets or seatbelts. So they are a projectile as well.

In California, at least, they are required to wear helmets.

And bikers are actually safer without seatbelts.

"Motorcycles are inherently dangerous vehicles; yet like all vehicles, manufacturers design them in a manner that maximizes rider safety. The omission of safety harnesses from motorcycles means that the motorcyclist does not share the same fate as the tipped over and skidding single-track vehicle." http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/mb.cfm

Yes seat belts save lives. No one is questioning that. But that video doesn't prove anything other than that fact. The government isn't in the business of saving individual lives or else there would be a plethora of laws on the books governing how we should live our lives. No fast food, exercise daily, no foods/drinks with artificial sweeteners or phosphoric acid, no smoking, etc. I mean look at smoking. It is a fact that smoking causes cancer. Why hasn't the government banned smoking? Hell, I bet more people kill other people because they were drunk behind the wheel than becoming a projectile and killing a passenger or torpedoing out the window and killing someone else. So, why hasn't the government banned alcohol?

That's wrong that government isn't in the business of saving individual lives. Why do you think seatbelts are mandatory to be built into all cars and trucks. It wasn't like that a couple of decades ago. Ralph Nader's entire career has been about getting government into the business of protecting people.

For the fast food, haven't you noticed how cities are banning transfats from foods and restaurants? How government requires nutritional information, publishes tons of studies, and has a surgeon general that speaks out against the bad things. Still, it's a personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else.

Not sure how a government could enforce a mandate on exercise. Still, another personal lifestyle choice.

There's a reason the tax on cigarettes keeps going up and up. A reason why smoking is essentially banned from public places. If a person wants to smoke and risk getting cancer, it's their business. But government is making it safer for non-smokers.

Drunk driving is banned. If you blow .08 or above, you're legally drunk and illegally driving. Now, whether that limit is too high can be debated, but it is illegal to drive drunk.



And in all of this, I've purposely avoided the issues of costs to implement, and lobbyists and industries spending money to keep things how they are. But that's another sigificant factor going into why government has/hasn't done things.