Legally wearing a seatbelt

AutoDas said:
Wow. You people are no different than the socialists, only that they're doing it on a bigger scale.



And seat belt laws come with their own set of unintended consequences, which further complicates the principle that policy should protect the peaceful people from the dangerous. Seat belt laws may make drivers and children safer, but economists such as Christopher Garbacz suggest that greater safety can make drivers more comfortable with dangerous driving, which puts the lives of more innocents—like pedestrians, cyclists and other passengers—in jeopardy.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32805.html​
Click to expand...

That's nice, but I'd rather see the study itself.
 
crazyfingers said:
10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:


Sorry, but that's how it works. I don't like seat belt laws either. It's just another excuse to pull people over. It goes both ways, though. For instance, I know New Hampshire doesn't have a seat built law.
Click to expand...

So you constitutionalts are no different than socialists. As long as the income tax, discrimination, healthcare, education are done on a state level then it's A-OK. The Constitution is not infallible (3/5ths Compromise?).
The 10th Amendment is there to make laws that would otherwise harm the Constitution.
 
AutoDas said:
Wow. You people are no different than the socialists, only that they're doing it on a bigger scale.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about.

We don't like seatbelt laws. We don't like many laws at all. A few people posting on here think we need these laws. Most of us don't.
 
Last edited:
As long as the income tax, discrimination, healthcare, education are done on a state level then it's A-OK.
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact I'd prefer as much as possible done at the local level. It also opens the door to private industry. Government doesn't work very well, but that's where it works best.
 
Last edited:
Um. Hello. knock-knock.

to all you who are upset at Ron Paul's lack of 'libertarianishness," Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN. Allowing the states to fashion whatsoever sort of gov't they want, be it fascist, communist, libertarian, or anarchy; is a REPUBLICAN political philosophy. As in the definition of the world 'republic' as used by Benjamin Franklin et al.
 
crazyfingers said:
Yes, in fact I'd prefer as much as possible done at the local level. It also opens the door to private industry. Government doesn't work very well, but that's where it works best.
Click to expand...

How is it being at the state level any more local than your local townhall? Ron Paul's message of the state is very confusing because of this.

Why does the federal government work best when the state has this power? The state can be just as gun-grabbing and rights-abusing as Washington D.C.

GunnyFreedom said:
Um. Hello. knock-knock.

to all you who are upset at Ron Paul's lack of 'libertarianishness," Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN. Allowing the states to fashion whatsoever sort of gov't they want, be it fascist, communist, libertarian, or anarchy; is a REPUBLICAN political philosophy. As in the definition of the world 'republic' as used by Benjamin Franklin et al.
Click to expand...

Good job! Yes, Ron Paul is trying to run on the Republican platform. Republican doesn't describe his thinking when it is associated with neocons.
 
NH is the only state in the country that does NOT have a mandatory seat belt law.

For 2006, the last year the numbers are available look like this:

The fatality rate for NH, third lowest in the country, per 100,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled is
.93

The national average is 1.41

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/25_MA/2006/25_MA_2006.htm

Obviously, having a "law" in place, has very little, or even perhaps a negative, effect on fatalities.
 
AutoDas said:
How is it being at the state level any more local than your local townhall? Ron Paul's message of the state is very confusing because of this.

Why does the federal government work best when the state has this power? The state can be just as gun-grabbing and rights-abusing as Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

And yet, there are a whole stupid bunch of people who want to live in a society without guns. Well, guns are a bad example because we DO happen to have the 2nd Amendment (nevermind that it is currently basically ignored).

But for instance, let's say abortion. There are millions of people in this nation who honestly and sincerely believe that abortion is as abhorrent as was the Nazi Holocaust. If we put these issues at the state level, then pro-lifers would be perfectly free to live in a pro life state, and pro-choicers would be perfectly free to live in a pro-choice state.

If there are 10 million people who honestly and sincerely believe that abortion is worse than the Holocaust, then shouldn't they have a right to re-locate themselves into a society which they can feel safe in?

Good job! Yes, Ron Paul is trying to run on the Republican platform. Republican doesn't describe his thinking when it is associated with neocons.
Click to expand...

I personally have a very libertarian political philosophy, and in the event of restoring America to a true Republic, I would in all likelihood move to a libertarian state like Wyoming, or Montana.

However, that being said, I fully recognize that there are literally millions of people in this nation who actually WANT to live in an authoritarian communist state. There are literally millions of people in this nation who actually WANT to live in an authoritarian fascist state. Shouldn't those people be free to live in the kind of society they prefer?

In my perfect vision of America, all the communists could move to Illinois, all the fascists could move to Idaho, and all the libertarians could move to Wyoming. Let the best state win. In the end, the more successful political philosophy will spread. I am confident that libertarianism is the best political philosophy, and do not feel the need to force it on people who do not want it in order to prove it to be the best.
 
AutoDas said:
Holy crap! This is why I don't like Ron Paul, but he's the closest to being a libertarian. He thinks all of these mob rules should be left up to the state.
Click to expand...

He doesn't think it should be left up to the state. From the federal perspective, it must be left up to the state; because the Constitution (with all of it's imperfections), which the federal government is bound by, demands it.

You asked later (paraphrased), what's the difference between tyranny at the federal level and tyranny at the local level? The answer is, nothing. But it is not the job of a Congressman, or President, in our structure of government, to remove or prevent tyranny at all levels.. only at the federal level.

To make sure that tyranny is at no level (in the context of this discussion, no seatbelt laws at the federal, state, or local levels), that is our job. It is our goal to keep the federal politicians in line and fight against seatbelt laws at the federal level, to keep state legislators in line and fight against seatbelt laws at the state level, and to keep city councilmen in line and fight against seatbelt laws at the local level.
 
sean43 said:
Is Ron Paul against people legally having to wear a seatbelt? I was thinking about it the other day. Its your responsibility but what if you crash and go flying through the windscreen and cause harm because of it?
Click to expand...

I feel certain that Dr. Paul is against forcing you to wear a seat belt. I also feel sure he's for you wearing a seat belt.
 
AutoDas said:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE seatbelts.pdf
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE seatbelts.pdf
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE seatbelts.pdf

I know you won't read it cause you're stubborn.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm in the process of obtaining his book on the subject. But thanks for showing me you're an [self edited because of a change of heart]. :)

I never said I was against what your views. I simply wanted a study. You didn't provide me one, someone else did.
 
Last edited:
The best treatment of this argument was put forward by an economist was this:

"Instead of mandating seatbelt laws, we should just mandate a massive spike in the center of the steering wheel, aimed at the driver's heart. It would be more effective."
 
sean43 said:
Is Ron Paul against people legally having to wear a seatbelt? I was thinking about it the other day. Its your responsibility but what if you crash and go flying through the windscreen and cause harm because of it?
Click to expand...

I think Ron Paul would leave it to states. You must also know that seat belts has saved lives and ALSO has resulted in many deaths. I think it should be left to the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FineSpeech
Mike Lee sponsoring digital ID surveillance laws for app stores
Replies
19
Views
4K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
unknown
WA: No firearm sales for 2 weeks and counting.
Replies
0
Views
191
unknown
unknown
PAF
Don’t Just Reform the US Government’s War on Drugs. End It.
Replies
2
Views
469
TheTexan
TheTexan
J
Release the JFK Jr. Files! JFK Jr. Published Article Questioning Father's Death Before Plane Went Down, NTBS Report Omitted Key Tower Contact
Replies
2
Views
93
James_Madison_Lives
J
jmdrake
Joe Rogan : "You gotta get scared that people who are not criminals are being set to El Salvador prisons."
27 28 29
Replies
561
Views
3K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Back
Top