The Nation's Pulse
Don’t Want to Buckle-Up for Safety?
Call Dr. Bob.
(Page 2 of 2)
But is this the equivalent of the notorious catalytic converter “test pipes” that were once available in auto parts stores?
Not as I see it.
Disabling a vehicle’s emissions controls results in pollution of the “commons” — the air we all must breathe. It’s hard to argue that your right to pollute is being violated by laws that require your car to have intact/operational emissions equipment.
On the other hand, not wearing a seat belt may result in harm to you — assuming you have an accident; and assuming that accident is serious enough to cause injury; and — biggest assumption of all — assuming that the wearing of a seat belt would make a difference.
Even if we assume you will be injured as a result of not buckling up, no one else is directly threatened by your actions.
Driving unbuckled might be foolish. It might be something you’d never do yourself . But that’s beside the point. The relevant issue is, Does the guy in the next lane’s decision not to wear his seat belt harm (or even threaten to harm) me?
And clearly, the answer is, no.
SOME WILL TRY to argue that “social costs” justify seat belt laws. What they mean is, if you get injured as a result of not wearing your seat belt, then others bear the cost in the form of higher medical costs/insurance premiums/taxpayer burdens and so on.
Perhaps.
But isn’t the same true of other private lifestyle choices, from what and how much we eat to whether we exercise or not to the recreational activities we partake of?
Fat people have much higher lifetime health-related costs — borne by “society” — than athletic people. There is an absolute correlation between activity levels and incidence of major illnesses, such as heart disease and high blood pressure.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. The alternative is a society in which every action or potential action taken by an individual may be checkmated by some tangential, hypothetical “harm” ginned up by an imaginative bureaucrat or busybody.
p>That line, it seems to me, is the one demarcating actions that present a clear threat to the lives or property or well-being of others. And by that reasonable standard, mandatory seat belt laws do not br> qualify. /p>So, here’s to Dr. Bob and his “prescription” for dealing with laws that have no business being enforced in the first place.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
A| 10.19.09 @ 1:49PM
re: Effective Action
Hello,
I happened upon your web site and saw that you advocate using the elective process to correct political abuse of rights.
I would suggest a more effective tool for you all to add.
Search for the term "Jury Nullification" this is a much more powerful tool and the spread of this knowledge is feared by most politicians and judges alike.
There is one site called (I believe) The "Fully Informed Jury ????" or something like that (???? = I forgot the last term in their name).
Since we are only allowed to pick "Corrupt Politician A" or "Corrupt Politician B" during an election the elective process is usually a waste of time for now.
Our country was founded upon the RIGHT to "Jury Nullification."
To require a jury to follow the "instructions of a judge" negates the need and true function of a jury.
Case in point:
Pre-WWII Germany was and still is a Democracy (we are a Constitutional Republic). The German courts did not and still do not have a jury system.
Judges are bound to ENFORCE the laws set forth by the politicians (in Germany's case Hitler).
Without Juries to check the balance of power between the people and the government Germany fell under the control of Hitler.
Our RIGHT to freedom of Religion, Press and many more were founded by the Juries not politicians or their police or military.
I have found that just the publication of this knowledge striks fear in the hearts(sic) of government officials!
Recap:
Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy!
Our elections are Representive not Democratic!
Only by protecting the individual is the greater good protected!
Do the Math:
CO2 is 2/3 Oxigen bury it and we die!
Plants convert Co2 to O2 and Wood (over simplified I grant you but you get the picture?)
Lower Taxes (not likely) and you lower the need for people to commute sa far.
Stop land speculation (not likely) and you reduce stripping land of trees to make TaxRateble developmentation.
After all would a politician Lie?
And it would be good to note that "Money" is a measuring device. Like the Yard or Meter it can not be allowed to change "Size" or it's relationship to other country's mesurements. The power to set "measures" is vested in congress, not some private corporation!
I just thought you might have found some of this interesting.
PS.
As a side note:
Not disrespect intended but many have offered as proof, that the Jewish community (lots of lawyers and accounts, etc.) would be fighting to stop any one who used of the word "Democracy" and to stop anyone who prevented "Jury Nullification" had the "Holocaust" actually happened. Hitler came to power via a "Democratic Election" and there was not jury nullification to stop his "LAWS!" For me this just raises too many unanswered questions.