What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?

[fj45lvr]

Hey perry tell me about seatbelts and then tell me how it works out that millions of kids everyday get to school on bus without any on.....the point is having them in cars is a good thing....using them is better....not using them is not a wise decision BUT not a CRIME.

If that is a crime why do we allow kids to have skateboards? People to downhill ski??

"KEEPING THE PEACE" doesn't equal keeping people "buckled"....it is only a revenue thing.

 

[Perry]

Hey perry tell me about seatbelts and then tell me how it works out that millions of kids everyday get to school on bus without any on.....the point is having them in cars is a good thing....using them is better....not using them is not a wise decision BUT not a CRIME.

If that is a crime why do we allow kids to have skateboards? People to downhill ski??

"KEEPING THE PEACE" doesn't equal keeping people "buckled"....it is only a revenue thing.

You don't want seatbelts on school buses because then you have a bunch of kids stuck in their seats after an accident with only one adult to attend them. Studies have been done on this numerous times and I assure you there is method to the madness. Honestly...I'm already getting bored of this discussion. It's number seven thousand four hundred and sixty one on my priority list see. If you honestly believe you look 1% cooler without the motorcycle helmet then go battle it in court. I can't stand however to waist another second thinking about the issue.
The argument should be that if you are dumb enough to ride a bike without a helmet then you haven't got brains that need protecting.

 

[jamesmadison]

Seatbelts are a great idea, if they are your responsibility instead of the governments. Tax payers shouldnt have to pay for me if I die not using one. Thats the whole point.

So, why, exactly is it Nader's fault that the government has mandated seatbelt laws?

He lobbied to give us the opprotunity to protect ourselves and was successful.
The government used this to create a law.

And it's naders fault?

Everyone should thank him for this otherwise you some of us may not be here to think him to begin with.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Perry wrote:

It's number seven thousand four hundred and sixty one on my priority list see. If you honestly believe you look 1% cooler without the motorcycle helmet then go battle it in court. I can't stand however to waist another second thinking about the issue.
The argument should be that if you are dumb enough to ride a bike without a helmet then you haven't got brains that need protecting.

Whoa, this is a bigger tent than I thought, since I thought I'd never see this argument cropping up.

The argument is not petty by any means, as it sums up the nanny state mentality in a nutshell:

"You are too stupid to know what's good for you, so we will force you to do what we think is good for you".

Follow that line of logic to it's inevitable end, and you get illegal killing wars and death camps.

Just for the record, we in the state that RP is going to win, New Hampshire that is, are the only ones in the nation who are not compelled by law to wear seat belts.

Therefore, we have one of the highest percentages of seat belt use, and one of the lowest per capita driving fatality rates.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This comes next:

A radical plan to improve the nation's health - including a workplace "exercise hour" - has been unveiled by a leading Government adviser.

New figures today show England is the fattest country in the EU. Now Professor Julian Le Grand, chairman of Health England, hopes to encourage people to improve their diets, give up smoking and exercise more.

He proposed the introduction of a smoking permit, which smokers would be required to show each time they bought tobacco. It is then their choice to go smoke free and not buy a permit.

Companies with more than 500 staff would have an "exercise hour". Employees would have to deliberately choose not to join in. The proposalsare the opposite of the Government's approach which requires people to opt in to healthy lifestyles. Instead it would be up to them to make the unhealthy choice.

And of course, if you "opt out" for whatever reason, then you can forget about any socialized medical "benefits".

 

[Perry]

Perry wrote:



Whoa, this is a bigger tent than I thought, since I thought I'd never see this argument cropping up.

The argument is not petty by any means, as it sums up the nanny state mentality in a nutshell:

"You are too stupid to know what's good for you, so we will force you to do what we think is good for you".

Follow that line of logic to it's inevitable end, and you get illegal killing wars and death camps.

Just for the record, we in the state that RP is going to win, New Hampshire that is, are the only ones in the nation who are not compelled by law to wear seat belts.

Therefore, we have one of the highest percentages of seat belt use, and one of the lowest per capita driving fatality rates.

Yeah...I just don't have the energy for this particular debate. Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Perry wrote:

Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about

People like me??? Who might that be?

Ok, maybe I'm just up too late and missing something here, are you a troll? A redstate lurker?

What the fuck, over: am I to assume that under a Paul adminstration, the federal extortion of state's highway funds are going to continue, with things like seat belt laws, drunk driving laws and so on, being "forced" on the states by the fedgov under pain of losing those dollars?

If the IRS is abolished how could the fedgov even make that threat anymore?

 

[Perry]

Perry wrote:



People like me??? Who might that be?

Ok, maybe I'm just up too late and missing something here, are you a troll? A redstate lurker?

What the fuck, over:

You anti seat-belt people. You are like Nazis i swear. Next thing you know it'll be the chair for people like me.
Chiill man. I really don't care. I was caught up in the subject on a tangent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You anti seat-belt people. You are like Nazis i swear. Next thing you know it'll be the chair for people like me.
Chiill man. I really don't care. I was caught up in the subject on a tangent.

I am anti-government coercion for any reason, good or bad.

I was going to go on, but I won't...

So I'm a nazi...right...

Chilled.

Good nite.

 

[johngr]

Naders the nut that lobbied the government to force auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in all their cars.

Nothing wrong with seatbelts, but you shouldnt have to have them if you dont want them. He pretty much guaranteed all the states would pass seatbelt laws.

what a dick.

He wants to be everyones daddy.

I supported for him to protest the 2 fake candidates in 2000. I was attending UCLA at the time and drove around LA with a Nader sticker on my 1962 Corvair (which I refused to retrofit). I got a few amused looks from the gridlock denizens who appreciated the irony.

 

[Perry]

I am anti-government coercion for any reason, good or bad.

I was going to go on, but I won't...

So I'm a nazi...right...

Chilled.

Good nite.

I WAS KIDDING!

 

[Orat]

So, why, exactly is it Nader's fault that the government has mandated seatbelt laws?

He lobbied to give us the opprotunity to protect ourselves and was successful.
The government used this to create a law.

And it's naders fault?

Everyone should thank him for this otherwise you some of us may not be here to think him to begin with.

He lobbied "give us the opprotunity" [sic]!? Who do you think he lobbied!? The government! Does the government hand out "opportunities"? No! They hand out fists with pistols clenched in them. He lobbied to make it a law. So heck yeah, it's Nader's fault!

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

THe point is

"For your own good" laws restrict freedom and free choice and imply that you do not own your body (or your car) but the government does, hence controlled substances etc. Responsibility is not stressed enough.

If by not wearing a seatbelt I cause someone else to be injured then I am responsible. The earlier post was correct, the whole seatbelt thing is just there to give the state revenue while at the same time giving officers an excuse to pull a lot of people over that normally they would have to leave alone.

I tend to believe if someone wants to drink and drive, let them, but the minute they cause an accident you lock them up and throw away the key. A lot fewer people would drink and drive since there is the prospect that lo and behold they might be held responsible for the consequences of their actions!

I could go on with this subject all day, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the Constitution allows for all of these "for your own good" laws that we have in this country.

 

[fj45lvr]

No one is arguing that seatbelts "generally" provide more safety....the argument is whether it is the function of government to make a company HAVE to install them in their cars (along with a whole bunch of other things as to design and structure/function)....then there is whether the gov. can FORCE people to do things for the benefit of society OR the individual (from their opinion) ......

This is "pandoras box" and the "limits" are purely "arbitrary" as to HOW FAR this goes.

If I want to make cars I sure as hell don't want the Gov. to tell me how I have to do it. Where in the Constitution do they derive this POWER???

 

[jamesmadison]

He lobbied "give us the opprotunity" [sic]!? Who do you think he lobbied!? The government! Does the government hand out "opportunities"? No! They hand out fists with pistols clenched in them. He lobbied to make it a law. So heck yeah, it's Nader's fault!

Uh.. so you must be against airbags, front collapse zone, and all other precautions that car manufacturers take to create cars safer for the average human being. I do not see the rationale that supporting seat belts in cars is supporting seat belt legislation in this country. If I am correct seat belt laws are state laws, not federal crimes - thus lobbying the federal government to force private industry to produce a safer product has nothing to do with states passing laws that enforce that safe product.

This is pretty ridiculous.

 

[jamesmadison]

No one is arguing that seatbelts "generally" provide more safety....the argument is whether it is the function of government to make a company HAVE to install them in their cars (along with a whole bunch of other things as to design and structure/function)....then there is whether the gov. can FORCE people to do things for the benefit of society OR the individual (from their opinion) ......

This is "pandoras box" and the "limits" are purely "arbitrary" as to HOW FAR this goes.

If I want to make cars I sure as hell don't want the Gov. to tell me how I have to do it. Where in the Constitution do they derive this POWER???

Should a government require cars to pass federal crash tests?

One is an intrusion on corporations; the other issue you bring up is a states issue of intrusion on the individual. They are not really related. I would go further and state that if a government’s function is to provide access to networks of transportation for its citizens that this gives them the some power to legislate safety of transportation on this network which includes speed limits, traffic laws, automobile regulations, etc. It is simply to ensure that people who use this, and pay for it, are not harmed by others who may recklessly be accessing it. But I do believe that seat-belt legislation is fairly intrusive as an argument can be made pertaining to the situation of whether a seatbelt is actually beneficial or a hazard.

I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

No

What's ridiculous is your assumption that a state can pass a law just because the federal government can't.

Legislating safety is very much against libertarian principles. If you understood this you wouldn't be arguing in favor of state "for your own good" laws.

States have no more right to pass laws telling me how to behave than the federal government does. What they can do is pass laws that will hold me responsible for destroying or damaging other people's property. Forcing auto makers to make cars a certain way is not a free market approach. If people really want airbags and there is a demand for them, auto makers stand to sell more cars that are equipped with them.

In other words, it's a sad day when people are being forced to wear seatbelts when they should be doing it on their own volition and not for fear of some government-imposed penalty.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

Should a government require cars to pass federal crash tests?

One is an intrusion on corporations, the other issue you bring up is a states issue of intrusion on the individual. They are not really related.

I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

You think the founders were so lacking in intelligence that they could not see progress at work in the sciences? You think they could not envision advances in technology? These arguments are about principle, and principle doesn't change just because you invent something new. Self-determination and responsibility should always be paramount in a free society.

 

[jamesmadison]

What's ridiculous is your assumption that a state can pass a law just because the federal government can't.

Legislating safety is very much against libertarian principles. If you understood this you wouldn't be arguing in favor of state "for your own good" laws.

States have no more right to pass laws telling me how to behave than the federal government does. What they can do is pass laws that will hold me responsible for destroying or damaging other people's property. Forcing auto makers to make cars a certain way is not a free market approach. If people really want airbags and there is a demand for them, auto makers stand to sell more cars that are equipped with them.

In other words, it's a sad day when people are being forced to wear seatbelts when they should be doing it on their own volition and not for fear of some government-imposed penalty.

I never said I was in favor of seat-belt legislation and i'm not certain where in my post you find this. I said that there is a difference between seat-belt legislation and mandating automobile manufacturers to produce automobiles with certain safety precautions.

The argument is not really logical. It's like saying let drug companies make whatever they want without any oversight - and when 1,000,000 people die because drug x proved to be toxic years later - so be it. When there is a potential for human death there is no litigation that can revive that human being, so the freedom of corporations must be limited to ensure personal liberty.

 

[jamesmadison]

You think the founders were so lacking in intelligence that they could not see progress at work in the sciences? You think they could not envision advances in technology? These arguments are about principle, and principle doesn't change just because you invent something new. Self-determination and responsibility should always be paramount in a free society.

I'm sorry but people who act as if the constition is a document of which we derive our liberties do not deserve liberties. Liberties are a product of man and man is a product of the universe. The founders were not infallible, although they were better than most.