Seat Belts and Individual Freedom

However, there's lots more friends of gun tragedies out there than there are friends on non-seatbelt use.
Click to expand...
Boy, I'd sure like to see some data for this one. Considering road deaths are the number one killer of certain age groups, and guns hardly rank, I would be GREATLY surprised if the seatbeltless death rate was anywhere close to the firearms accidental death rate.
 
edited*

I don't think that it's up to the government to protect me from myself and I don't think it's up to the government (society) to have to pay for mine or anyone else's stupidity.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
Handy,
When people get attached to a simple, bumper-sticker ideology then any amount of stretching, nit picking, or outrageous claims goes.

Maybe we could think about it a little and come up with something better than ".gov=bad".

Promoting the general welfare is a legitimate function of the state. It is the Preamble to the Constitution. But balancing that are issues of individual freedom. So some factors to consider might be:
1) Is gov't imposing an expense on the citizen?
2) Is that expense reasonable?
3) Will the measure involve excessive intrusion into people's privacy?
4) Is the measure enforceable at all?
5) Even if the measure is enforced to a reasonable degree will it solve any problem?

I'll give an example. In VA (I was just visiting there recently) and in other states they mandate that cars have to pass a safety inspection. Now undoubtedly some accidents are caused by mechanical failiures. But most arent. So the law does impose an expense. Is the expense reasonable? I dont know. Is it enforceable? Yes, obviously. But is it effective? I dont think so. I dont think that there are fewer accidents caused by mechanical failure in VA than in TN. I would oppose the law on that basis alone.
 
Rabbi-
In regards to "General Welfare", you measure "expense", "reasonable expense", "degree of intrusion", "enforceability" and "ability to solve the problem". Objective measures for Government Control? Let's see.

It's only fair that I ask you the question that QuickTrig refused to answer:
Far more people are killed or maimed by excessive speed each year than seat belt violations.
Certainly there is no Legal reason that a car be capable of doing 100, 120, 140 or 160 MPH.
Government can resolve this by the stroke of a pen.....simply require, beginning with the '07 Model year, that manufacturers limit automobile computers to 75 MPH.
Would you be in favor of this simple, yet effective change? If not, I'd like to know Why Not?
Click to expand...

Why is the question so "over the top" for your objective standards?
Rich
 
Rich I might point out in your statistics about 1/2 of the firearm related deaths are suicides. I don't know that I've ever read any statistics related to what percent of motor vehicle deaths with and without seat belts are suicides.

We can presume that a good number of the night time DUI single car accident deaths are suicides however. Is the number of MVA suicides significant? Should suicide be considered an accident?

Also I wonder if the problem of teen MVA deaths could be better handled by incremental licensing?

Rabbi, what if promoting the general welfare consisted of allowing Darwin to do what Darwin does?
 
The US Supreme Court, and other lower courts, have ruled that competent individuals have an inherent right to refuse life-saving medical treatment.

It seems obvious that this can be applied to seat belt laws. I'd have brought such a case in California through the appeal cycle, but the cop didn't show, and then we moved to New Hampshire.
 
Rabbi, what if promoting the general welfare consisted of allowing Darwin to do what Darwin does?
Click to expand...

Because thats not promoting the "general" welfare.
Maybe you can flesh out your position a little more clearly for QuickTrig that his friend was a moron and better off dead. After all, that's Darwinism, right?
 
The Rabbi said:
Maybe you can flesh out your position a little more clearly for QuickTrig that his friend was a moron and better off dead. After all, that's Darwinism, right?
Click to expand...
Perhaps all Public Policy debates should begin with anecdotal stories of personal tragedy, followed by a Group Hug. That way, we never have to answer the hard questions.

I doubt you're ducking Rabbi, though you have thus far wrapped yourself, first in the flag and now in the burial shroud of a dead child. I'll pose the Public Policy question to you again:
Far more people are killed or maimed by excessive speed each year than seat belt violations. Certainly there is no Legal reason that a car be capable of doing 100, 120, 140 or 160 MPH.

Government can resolve this by the stroke of a pen.....simply require, beginning with the '07 Model year, that manufacturers limit automobile computers to 75 MPH.

Would you be in favor of this simple, yet effective change? If not, I'd like to know Why Not?
Click to expand...
Rich
 
Rich,

All this talk of gun safes and accidents led me to believe that when you spoke of gun "tragedies" they were unintentional accidents, since you know as well as I that guns don't CAUSE suicide or homocide. The correct number for unintentional firearms deaths in 2002 is 762, or about 1/10 that of seat belt non-use deaths.

Come on Handy, lets go for the real aspect here, you like these laws because they control people don't you?
Click to expand...
No.

If you don't want to believe that a restraint system helps control a car during an accident, I can't convince you. Having had such an accident, I'm well convinced. I held the wheel throughout the crash, despite forces pushing me against the belt hard enough to crack ribs. So I see this as little different than other mandatory safety/control devices built into cars.


I used the expression "OUR roads" to underline that the current seat belt laws are the product of a democratic process that we all take part in. The majority of your representatives feel that seat belts are as integral a part of PUBLIC road use as safety glass and guard rails, and I happen to agree with them.
 
The majority of your representatives feel that seat belts are as integral a part of PUBLIC road use as safety glass and guard rails, and I happen to agree with them.
Click to expand...

Well, if the majority opinion of our representatives is the standard for reasonable government coercion, I don't quite understand what all this campaigning against gun control laws is all about.

After all, if the majority of your representatives are of the opinion that 10+ shot magazines and flash suppressors are integral to public safety, who are we to argue?

Lest you think I am just a seat belt hater, let me assure you that I always wear mine. However, since the debate is clearly centering on emotional bonmots instead of reason, let me rephrase Rich's point for you in a cut-and-dry manner:

When does it become OK for government to hold a gun to your head and force you to cease behavior that harms no one but yourself?

If you claim that government has that authority, whether through the nebulous "general welfare" statement, or majority opinion, you still face a conundrum. You advocate government intervention to stop a behavior that causes X number of deaths per year, yet you do not support government intervention to stop a far more risky behavior that causes x*5 number of deaths each year. That's a glaring logical inconsistency, and the only defense you offer is emotional.

"If you could only see the victims of seatbelt scoffing/meth use/Big Mac consumption that *I* have seen in the line of my work..."

I see your emotional plea and raise you one Sarah Brady "if you could only see the poor victims of gun violence *I've* seen..."

If you claim the right to have your representatives force me to wear a seatbelt for my own good, then you have absolutely no standing to open your mouth in protest when Sarah Brady convinces a bunch of her Congress pals to pass a law that takes guns out of your hand for your own good.
 
Handy said:
All this talk of gun safes and accidents led me to believe that when you spoke of gun "tragedies" they were unintentional accidents, since you know as well as I that guns don't CAUSE suicide or homocide. The correct number for unintentional firearms deaths in 2002 is 762, or about 1/10 that of seat belt non-use deaths.
Click to expand...
Ouch, Handy. I never expected you to walk into that one....that's the truth. Meek even hinted at the potential mistake you just made.

I NEVER spoke of "accidental deaths"; I spoke of "firearms deaths" vs "seatbelt outlawry deaths". This IS a public policy debate about the need for government to control personal behaviors that are dangerous to self and potentially dangerous/costly for others. I didn't frame it that way; I joined it on that basis.

My point was that firearms deaths are as easily ameliorated by government action as Seatbelt Outlawry deaths. Now you could argue that a person, intent on suicide or murder will just find another method; I can just as easily argue that a self-destructive person who is forced by peer pressure and education into his seat belt, will simply find another STOOPID method of that self destruction....REGARDLESS of govt LE action.

Of course, then we get into hypotheticals, which have no place outside the University Physics Lab.

No, the debate had been framed at the outset of this thread. Protecting people from their own folly is what it's about. Failure to wear a seat belt is intentional folly. So are wrongful firearms deaths, with the notable EXCEPTION of the 762 you just mentioned.

Simply control the tool of all these deaths and the problem will disappear within a couple of generations; control the ammunition, and the tragic losses will disappear in a couple of very short years.

Of course, as in all things, one must ask the question, "At What Cost?" ;)
Rich
 
Because thats not promoting the "general" welfare.
Click to expand...

First of all, the "general welfare" statement is found in the Preamble to the Constitution. As such, it is prefatory language and has absolutely no legal weight.

Second, the term "general welfare", when used to justify government intervention, is as mushy and flexible as the terms "the good of society", or "God's will" in the same context. The term invariably means what the speaker wants it to mean, and it is only ever used by people who want to feel all high and noble and morally justified for pushing measure XYZ.

Third, I think this rock would be a much better place to live on if people stopped trying to force their neighbors to do what they think is best for them. There's no such thing as "general welfare"...there's my welfare, and then there's yours. How about you worry about your welfare, and I worry about my own? I'm in a much better position to decide what's best for me, and my task would be made a whole lot easier if I didn't have to suffer other people's attempts to ensure my welfare.

99% of the crap that comes down from our legislators is directly attributable to the fact that most people know they can manage their own lives just fine, but they also know that their neighbors down the street are just too dumb/irresponsible/dangerous to manage theirs. This moral paternalism is killing our freedoms, because everybody has a different pet prohibition for their neighbor.
 
"First of all, the "general welfare" statement is found in the Preamble to the Constitution. As such, it is prefatory language and has absolutely no legal weight."

Say what?

Sounds like daisy picking and hare splitting.

Have any citations for judicial rulings that state that the preamble to the Constitution has no legal weight?

In fact, you may wish to read this...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

The preamble, in fact, has much legal weight as the foundational element for the rest of the document.

As for there not being a general welfare, I think we both know that's abundantly false, right? There are certain aspects of the Constitution that certainly do promote the general welfare of the majority of the nation's inhabitants.

Say, for example, the power of the Federal government to raise a military force to repel an agressor nation.

Or, say, the power of the Federal government to regulate standard weights and measures? Or would you really like to try to deal with a system in which California's pound is 18.972922 ounces, with the ounce being the average weight of Arhnold's gallstones, while Massachusett's pound is based on the average weight of 12 good sized lobsters and the ounce is the left claw.

In the past I belive you've called for a return to the Constitution as it was written.

Now you're telling us, in essence, that the Framers were a bunch of 18th century hacks who didn't know what the hell they were talking about?

Oh, by the way...

General welfare? It's not just in the preamble. It's also in Section 8, clause 1.

And that definitely has legal weight.
 
Last edited:
"Walk right into it"? Whatever, Rich. There is no public policy debate on banning ALL firearms for public safety. Show me a bill introduced to either House that does that. But there is a public policy debate about the introduction of increased safeguards to prevent accidental shooting deaths - which has resulted in the various firearm's locks and storage laws. That at least bears a resemblence to this discussion.


What I'm not understanding from you guys is what your ultimate intention is. Do you want to completely deregulate the roads? No speed limits, equipment restrictions or licensing requirements of any kind?

How is a seatbelt law any different than the regulations concerning road construction and brake lights?


Do you really prefer a Mad Max vision of road anarchy just to preserve an illusion of absolute liberty?
 
What I'm not understanding from you guys is what your ultimate intention is. Do you want to completely deregulate the roads? No speed limits, equipment restrictions or licensing requirements of any kind?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify your position, Handy...

If someone were to wave a magic wand tomorrow morning and make all traffic regulations and enforcement disappear, you would carry on just like before with your responsible self...but you know for a fact that everyone else cannot be trusted to act responsibly, right?

Congratulations...you have turned into Dianne Feinstein. The only difference between you and DiFi is the kind of device which you don't trust your fellow citizen to use properly without big nanny government stepping in to keep them safe.
 
First I want to say...NOT COOL RICH!!!

Maybe a title change would of been a better tactic.

Anyways, Moving along, I think that requiring a seatbelt by law is comparable to making people walk around with helmets.
 
New Hampshire is the only state without a seatbelt law for adults.

It is also one of a handful of states without a motorcycle helmet law, and does not have mandatory auto insurance.

It consistently ranks among the bottom five in motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, and has some of the lowest car insurance rates in the country, and the seatbelt use rate is at 63.4% and climbing.

So this should be a clue to anyone who's willing to look beyond the hype and emotionalism that freedom works.
 
Handy said:
There is no public policy debate on banning ALL firearms for public safety. Show me a bill introduced to either House that does that.
Click to expand...
There is a measure on the ballot in San Francisco to ban all handguns. A similar measure was put forth statewide several years ago, but was voted down.

DC bans possession of all handguns not registered before a certain year, and it's no longer possible to register them, and it's not possible to keep a assembled or loaded registered handgun without breaking the law.

Morton Grove, Illinois was the first, in 1981, to ban the sale and possession of handguns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top