Seatbelt Laws

[Chuck]

[EDIT: Vettezuki] This is a branch off from "I'll be fighting this one (http://www.motorgen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17258)."

That shit sucks they have nothing better to do than give us bullshit tickets. This whole click it or ticket is Fuc#&D if I don't want to f-ing click it thats my choice. If I get in to an accident I want them to scrape my dead ass up off the asphalt. Fight that shit.

[SeanPlunk]

That shit sucks they have nothing better to do than give us bullshit tickets. This whole click it or ticket is Fuc#&D if I don't want to f-ing click it thats my choice. If I get in to an accident I want them to scrape my dead ass up off the asphalt. Fight that shit.

I was with you on the dumb ticket part, but not wearing a seatbelt is stupid. I have no problem with seatbelt laws.

[Vettezuki]

I was with you on the dumb ticket part, but not wearing a seatbelt is stupid. I have no problem with seatbelt laws.

Different discussion. But to hell with the nanny state in ALL of its forms, every inch, everywhere. If you don't wear a seatbelt or helmet you are in fact kind of stupid. And yes, that is in fact, your right. The same line of thinking that empowers the state to insert itself by force of law vis a vis seat belts and helmets (that is "externalities" and "neighborhood effects") acknowledges no fundamental bounds. Chuck, your instincts are correct. The State has no right to protect you from yourself. They just invent and take powers over We the Peasants.

[SeanPlunk]

Different discussion. But to hell with the nanny state in ALL of its forms, every inch, everywhere. If you don't wear a seatbelt or helmet you are in fact kind of stupid. And yes, that is in fact, your right. The same line of thinking that empowers the state to insert itself by force of law vis a vis seat belts and helmets (that is "externalities" and "neighborhood effects") acknowledges no fundamental bounds. Chuck, your instincts are correct. The State has no right to protect you from yourself. They just invent and take powers over We the Peasants.

The right to drive is not absolute. To drive you have to get licensed from the state. If you don't want to abide by the rules (i.e. seatbelt laws), then you have the right to not drive. Would you also advocate people should be able to drink and drive?

[Vettezuki]

Would you also advocate people should be able to drink and drive?

False analogy. One endangers oneself, the other endangers others. Furthermore, drinking and driving is not evaluated on the basis of functional impairment, but mere BAC. Some people in fact are not a danger at 0.1. Meanwhile, driving while exhausted can be extremely dangerous. They can pull you over if you're driving peculiar, but if they only see that you're tired, they'll send you on your way to kill a family.

Next.

[enkeivette]

I think not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I'm still with Chuck on this one. If it doesn't infringe on the rights of others it has no legal justification.

As far as drinking and driving, I think the limit should be raised, definitely. A .08 is what? Two beers? I'm as light weight as it gets, I drink maybe three or four times a year. And I can barely feel two beers.

Not sure if I posted a thread on this, but a cop let me go for doing 83 in a 65 last month. Sometimes it pays to be nice.

[enkeivette]

They are the law. They do whatever the fuck they want.

You see, mods curse too. But they need to get really angry first.

I agree about the cops. It was something we put in place to help ourselves, and now that it's become more of a harassing presence than a helpful presence it is too late to do anything about it because the cops pull in too much revenue for the govt. And no politician would be stupid enough to throw that money away, especially not right now.

[Vettezuki]

. . . Not sure if I posted a thread on this, but a cop let me go for doing 83 in a 65 last month. Sometimes it pays to be nice.


Were you in the Vette or Neon. I once had a major right down, err, to 83 from a perfectly nice officer. I was nice with this guy right up to the point it was patently clear he was "revenuing". Then I gave him strictly the facts treatment.

[Vettezuki]

You see, mods curse too. But they need to get really angry first.

I agree about the cops. It was something we put in place to help ourselves, and now that it's become more of a harassing presence than a helpful presence it is too late to do anything about it because the cops pull in too much revenue for the govt. And no politician would be stupid enough to throw that money away, especially not right now.


We need a reset . . .

[Vettezuki]

I think not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I'm still with Chuck on this one. If it doesn't infringe on the rights of others it has no legal justification.

I really really want to live in that place.

[SeanPlunk]

I really really want to live in that place.

What if a parent doesn't deem it necessary for their child to wear a seatbelt? Or are you advocating that all people under 18 should have to wear a seatbelt but anyone over can decide for themselves?

[Vettezuki]

What if a parent doesn't deem it necessary for their child to wear a seatbelt? Or are you advocating that all people under 18 should have to wear a seatbelt but anyone over can decide for themselves?

My short answer is that it is the parent's prerogative. To say otherwise is essentially to say that the state has primary claim on a child, ahead of the parent.

[SeanPlunk]

My short answer is that it is the parent's prerogative. To say otherwise is essentially to say that the state has primary claim on a child, ahead of the parent.

I disagree 100% A child cannot make that decision for themselves and should be protected.

[Vettezuki]

I disagree 100% A child cannot make that decision for themselves and should be protected.

Nice try. I said the parent has the right and responsibility to make the choice, not the child.

[enkeivette]

What if a parent doesn't deem it necessary for their child to wear a seatbelt? Or are you advocating that all people under 18 should have to wear a seatbelt but anyone over can decide for themselves?

Didn't think about children. I guess for them the law makes sense. But not for adults.

Please don't ever say you disagree more than 100%, or I'll need to book you a spot on the Maury show.

[enkeivette]

This girl is gonna take you to school Sean.

YouTube- I'M A GAZILLION PERCENT SURE HE IS DA FATHER!!!

[SeanPlunk]

Nice try. I said the parent has the right and responsibility to make the choice, not the child.

I know what you said. The parent should not have a choice on whether a 5 year old puts on a seatbelt or not. It should be a law.

[jedhead]

Sean, I am with Ben on this one. All these nanny laws take away your freedoms. One of the consequences of being free is being free to make mistakes and held accountable for them.

Bob

[SeanPlunk]

Sean, I am with Ben on this one. All these nanny laws take away your freedoms. One of the consequences of being free is being free to make mistakes and held accountable for them.

Bob

The child is not making a mistake in this instance, the parent is. That's the difference. I agree in principle for adults.

Laws exist for a reason. You guys seem to think that you live in a vacuum. The whole idea that with no government intervention things would be better is asinine.

[Vettezuki]

I know what you said. The parent should not have a choice on whether a 5 year old puts on a seatbelt or not. It should be a law.

The principle you're applying is that the state should intervene on behalf of protecting the child's well being. Ok. Seatbelt laws are fairly trivial in this regard. On the other hand, millions of children are being put at extreme risk of shortened and degraded lives and simultaneously putting vast strains on a now largely socialized medical system. Surely you must then believe the state should be substantially intervening to ensure children are eating properly. After all, if the idea is to make a better and safer society, and apparently there are no fundamental restrictions on what the state can do to achieve these aims, then why not? We don't live in a vacuum right? What's the difference between forcing people to wear seatbelts (or rather, just punishing them for not) and doing the same for maintaining poor health? They're both just forms of not looking after oneself. Children could have annual physicals at school. We could just fine parents if their children are outside of state mandated guidelines for good health. By comparison this would certainly have a much larger net benefit to the society as a whole than a measly seatbelt law and there isn't a damn bit of difference underlying the action.

[gsteichen]

Back in the 80's when the California seatbelt law was first enacted it was a "secondary enforcement" violation, meaning that you could NOT be pulled over for not wearing a belt but could be cited if you were stopped for another violation. At the time legislators swore on their children's graves that it would NEVER be changed to "primary enforcement" and that no one would EVER be stopped just for not wearing a belt. The "slippery slope" and "camel's nose under the tent" are real.

[SeanPlunk]

The principle you're applying is that the state should intervene on behalf of protecting the child's well being. Ok. Seatbelt laws are fairly trivial in this regard. On the other hand, millions of children are being put at extreme risk of shortened and degraded lives and simultaneously putting vast strains on a now largely socialized medical system. Surely you must then believe the state should be substantially intervening to ensure children are eating properly. After all, if the idea is to make a better and safer society, and apparently there are no fundamental restrictions on what the state can do to achieve these aims, then why not? What's the difference between forcing people to wear seatbelts (or rather, just punishing them for not) and doing the same for maintaining poor health? There both just forms of not looking after oneself. Children could have annual physicals at school. We could just fine parents if their children are outside of state mandated guidelines for good health.


I actually do believe that. I think especially regarding meals served at schools their should be restrictions based on nutrition. I also think that people who are obese for non-medical reasons should be charged more for health insurance.

[SeanPlunk]

Back in the 80's when the California seatbelt law was first enacted it was a "secondary enforcement" violation, meaning that you could NOT be pulled over for not wearing a belt but could be cited if you were stopped for another violation. At the time legislators swore on their children's graves that it would NEVER be changed to "primary enforcement" and that no one would EVER be stopped just for not wearing a belt. The "slippery slope" and "camel's nose under the tent" are real.

I believe it should be a secondary enforcement for an adult, but a primary for children.

[Vettezuki]

I actually do believe that. I think especially regarding meals served at schools their should be restrictions based on nutrition. I also think that people who are obese for non-medical reasons should be charged more for health insurance.

No side stepping. Do you believe parents should be fined, as they are fined for not wearing seatbelts, for having obese children (assuming no medical cuase)?


If no, then why not?

[Vettezuki]

I believe it should be a secondary enforcement for an adult, but a primary for children.

Why the distinction of secondary for an adult?

[SeanPlunk]

Why the distinction of secondary for an adult?

Pardon, I would actually remove the law for people over 18. I would only make it a law for children.

[SeanPlunk]

No side stepping. Do you believe parents should be fined, as they are fined for not wearing seatbelts, for having obese children (assuming no medical cuase)?


If no, then why not?

Yes. The fines should be passed on as higher costs for health insurance. The parent should have to pay the difference (not an employer). For extreme cases (like a 100lb 5 year old) I would say it's child abuse and would actually consider removing the child from the parent's care if they didn't take steps to fix things.

[jedhead]

Shall we have laws to punish parents for misbehaving kids, after all discipline starts at home. Should parents be fined when their kids get lost at Disneyland, State Fairs etc, since they obviously where not watching their kids properly? Should social services conduct surprise home inspections on parents incase the home is not child proofed or safe enough for some government bureaucrat? How much to you want others to decide what is right or wrong for your kid? How much government intrusion in your lives do you want? In an attempt to guarantee safety for all, how much freedom are you willing to give up? Once your freedom is gone, what will you do if you disagree with some government bureaucrat on what is best for your child? Would you risk loosing custody in an attempt to fight said bureaucrat? There will always be bad parents and bad people and life is not fair. You will never be able to equalize outcomes because we are all unique.
I'll do anything to protect my kids. My children come first. But I know that not all parents are like me and I can't legislate these bad parents to be good ones even if their kids suffer. I spend a lot of time with youth organizations to try to help and be an example for those kids. Governments and bureaucrats don't care screws things up in the end, the people that do care have to stand up and work without or in spite the government.

Bob

[SeanPlunk]

Shall we have laws to punish parents for misbehaving kids, after all discipline starts at home. Should parents be fined when their kids get lost at Disneyland, State Fairs etc, since they obviously where not watching their kids properly? Should social services conduct surprise home inspections on parents incase the home is not child proofed or safe enough for some government bureaucrat? How much to you want others to decide what is right or wrong for your kid? How much government intrusion in your lives do you want? In an attempt to guarantee safety for all, how much freedom are you willing to give up? Once your freedom is gone, what will you do if you disagree with some government bureaucrat on what is best for your child? Would you risk loosing custody in an attempt to fight said bureaucrat? There will always be bad parents and bad people and life is not fair. You will never be able to equalize outcomes because we are all unique.
I'll do anything to protect my kids. My children come first. But I know that not all parents are like me and I can't legislate these bad parents to be good ones even if their kids suffer. I spend a lot of time with youth organizations to try to help and be an example for those kids. Governments and bureaucrats don't care screws things up in the end, the people that do care have to stand up and work without or in spite the government.

Bob


I'm not advocating anything you have said. The reality is that the two extremes here are total government control, or none. You seem to advocate none. That simply cannot happen in a modern day society, so I reject it. What I would say is that obviously the correct amount should be somewhere in the middle, and that line should be dictated by the voters in the system. Laws are necessary and while things will never be totally fair, I see no problem with putting laws in place to protect those that can't protect themselves.

[Vettezuki]

Yes. The fines should be passed on as higher costs for health insurance.

Via private insurance? Bet you that turns into a discrimination law suit. :smack:

For extreme cases (like a 100lb 5 year old) I would say it's child abuse and would actually consider removing the child from the parent's care if they didn't take steps to fix things.

CPS is a despotic, corrupt, and tyrannical agency as it is.

I have no objection to preaching the message, advocating, persuading, or even shaming and using peer pressure etc. I have a categorical problem against using law, which is a club, nothing else, to transform others into what I prefer. These modes of thought are not compatible. I see a curious future ahead.

[Vettezuki]

. . and that line should be dictated by the voters in the system. . . .

Curious choice of words that admits the complete lack of any theory or systematization of rights. It's right because enough of us say so, now STFU! Sounds familiar.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. " - John Adams

I'm actually encouraged by this thinking. It signals the end which we can see coming fiscally and socially. The more belligerently its pushed, the faster it comes.

[SeanPlunk]

Curious choice of words that admits the complete lack of any theory or systematization of rights. It's right because enough of us say so, now STFU! Sounds familiar.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. " - John Adams

I'm actually encouraged by this thinking. It signals the end which we can see coming fiscally and socially. The more belligerently its pushed, the faster it comes.

I think you missed my point.

Our options are
1) No government intervention
2) Some level of government intervention
3) Total government intervention

You guys all seem to think it should be choice 1, which is absurd and could never work in reality.

Choice 3 is also totally absurd and can also never work in reality.

This leaves us with choice 2. What I'm saying is that the appropriate level of government intervention in a democracy is decided by voters. You and Bob both clearly think the government is too involved. I think in some instances you're right. I also think in some instances more government intervention is necessary. I voice my opinion one way or the other by voting for candidates that more closely align with my position. That's the way a democracy works.

If you want to argue our system is broken, or that we're really a Republic, that's a completely different argument.

[Vettezuki]

I think you missed my point.

Our options are
1) No government intervention
2) Some level of government intervention
3) Total government intervention

You guys all seem to think it should be choice 1, which is absurd and could never work in reality.

Choice 3 is also totally absurd and can also never work in reality.

This leaves us with choice 2. What I'm saying is that the appropriate level of government intervention in a democracy is decided by voters. You and Bob both clearly think the government is too involved. I think in some instances you're right. I also think in some instances more government intervention is necessary. I voice my opinion one way or the other by voting for candidates that more closely align with my position. That's the way a democracy works.

If you want to argue our system is broken, or that we're really a Republic, that's a completely different argument.

Choice 2 restricted by a fundamental view of rights, not a might makes right/majority rules view, would be a good and reasonable goal. (A hard core republic with a natural rights basis for law.) The essential problem is that we started that way and crossed into at first a Utilitarian philosophical POV that makes 3 entirely plausible. I routinely hear from liberal progressives how we can just sort of do whatever we want in the name of the greater good and that the republican philosophy (note the lower case) is antiquated and obsolete. Many of us are not happy about living under the rule, and that's what it is, of the democratic philosophy. These philosophies are not compatible in the same space and time and increasingly heated conflict is inevitable.

As for 1, the part almost everyone confuses is that the absence of a state equals the absence of law and order. This is FAR more theoretically and historically complex than you are aware.

Democracy: The God that Failed

[enkeivette]

The principle you're applying is that the state should intervene on behalf of protecting the child's well being. Ok. Seatbelt laws are fairly trivial in this regard. On the other hand, millions of children are being put at extreme risk of shortened and degraded lives and simultaneously putting vast strains on a now largely socialized medical system. Surely you must then believe the state should be substantially intervening to ensure children are eating properly. After all, if the idea is to make a better and safer society, and apparently there are no fundamental restrictions on what the state can do to achieve these aims, then why not? We don't live in a vacuum right? What's the difference between forcing people to wear seatbelts (or rather, just punishing them for not) and doing the same for maintaining poor health? They're both just forms of not looking after oneself. Children could have annual physicals at school. We could just fine parents if their children are outside of state mandated guidelines for good health. By comparison this would certainly have a much larger net benefit to the society as a whole than a measly seatbelt law and there isn't a damn bit of difference underlying the action.

Have yet to read pg 3 and 4, but the govt. does have the right to keep your kids healthy. If a judge determines you're not fit to be a parent, he can take away your rights to your child. No there are no annual checkups, but you get the idea.

[Vettezuki]

Have yet to read pg 3 and 4, but the govt. does have the right to keep your kids healthy. If a judge determines you're not fit to be a parent, he can take away your rights to your child. No there are no annual checkups, but you get the idea.

It doesn't have the right. It has the power. Big difference.

[Chuck]

Wow, this was just me saying I don't like not being able to make a decision about something that solely affects myself and no one else. I think that I have received 3 seatbelt tickets, the first one I was literally pulling out of my driveway and the cop saw me putting it on, pulled me over and my windows were down so Ranger Dick made me roll my windows up to check for tint, I passed that test so he had to do something so he proceeded to write me a seatbelt ticket. I would have fought it but it was at that time only like 35 bucks and it wasn't worth my time. But from that day on I have decided not to wear one; its my choice. Also I have been in a few accidents and every time I would have been worse off had I been wearing a seatbelt.

[Chuck]

So the way I see it, my odds of being injured while wearing a seatbelt or not are about equal. So I choose not to wear one. How many times do you hear "he would have lived had it not been for his seatbelt". I know I have heard that a countless number of times.

[SeanPlunk]

So the way I see it, my odds of being injured while wearing a seatbelt or not are about equal. So I choose not to wear one. How many times do you hear "he would have lived had it not been for his seatbelt". I know I have heard that a countless number of times.

:bs:

Please link me to multiple stories where people died because they were wearing a seatbelt.

[94cobra69ss396]

Yes. The fines should be passed on as higher costs for health insurance. The parent should have to pay the difference (not an employer). For extreme cases (like a 100lb 5 year old) I would say it's child abuse and would actually consider removing the child from the parent's care if they didn't take steps to fix things.

Then the same should be true for us as parents. We should be able to fine the schools for not providing proper physical activities. I'm sure that all of you had P.E. every day when you were in elementry school. Did you know that they now only have P.E. once a week? They require the kids to learn so much more now that they only have time to do P.E. once a week. I was stunned when I found that out from Kylie (3rd grade) this year.

I don't think the government should be able to tell me how to protect my child. I would never let either of my girls ride in a car without a seatbelt on but I don't think the goverment should be able to tell me they have to. They push some of these things a little too far. The kids helmet law is a perfect example. I think it's stupid that they can give a ticket to a parent because a kid doesn't wear a helmet while riding a bike. Did you know that they a required to until they are 18? One of my nephews came to visit us from NY when he was about 13-14 and he got pulled over by a sheriff for not having a helmet on. The officer made him walk the bike back to our house (about 2 miles away) and get a helmet.

[94cobra69ss396]

So the way I see it, my odds of being injured while wearing a seatbelt or not are about equal. So I choose not to wear one. How many times do you hear "he would have lived had it not been for his seatbelt". I know I have heard that a countless number of times.

I agree that you should have the right not to wear one if you so choose. For me, I always wear mine. I have ever since 1987 when I got my license. Back when I was 23 I flipped over a 300ZX doing 120mph. If not for my seat belt I would have been dead. As it was I actually scalped myself because the car had T-tops and being 6'4 my head went through it and scraped the ground. Luckly I was able to pull myself up using the steering wheel until the car came to a stop on it's roof. Without my seat belt I would have ended up like the speaker box and flown off the overpass onto the 210 60ft below.

[SeanPlunk]

Then the same should be true for us as parents. We should be able to fine the schools for not providing proper physical activities. I'm sure that all of you had P.E. every day when you were in elementry school. Did you know that they now only have P.E. once a week? They require the kids to learn so much more now that they only have time to do P.E. once a week. I was stunned when I found that out from Kylie (3rd grade) this year.

I don't think the government should be able to tell me how to protect my child. I would never let either of my girls ride in a car without a seatbelt on but I don't think the goverment should be able to tell me they have to. They push some of these things a little too far. The kids helmet law is a perfect example. I think it's stupid that they can give a ticket to a parent because a kid doesn't wear a helmet while riding a bike. Did you know that they a required to until they are 18? One of my nephews came to visit us from NY when he was about 13-14 and he got pulled over by a sheriff for not having a helmet on. The officer made him walk the bike back to our house (about 2 miles away) and get a helmet.

I think obesity comes down to a variety of factors and the lack of P.E. at schools is only a small part of it. I think it basically boils down to the disgusting food most of us eat, and the lack of any physical activity. While P.E. would certainly help, I think ultimately eating habits are much more important.

[SeanPlunk]

I don't understand the logic for most of you. Every single one of you says you would always make your kids wear seatbelts, but then in the same breath say you don't think it should be a law. What that tells me is that you're responsible parents. Assuming that every other parent is as responsible though is foolish. I believe laws like this should exist to protect kids with parents that may not be as smart as all you are.

[Vettezuki]

I don't understand the logic for most of you. Every single one of you says you would always make your kids wear seatbelts, but then in the same breath say you don't think it should be a law. What that tells me is that you're responsible parents. Assuming that every other parent is as responsible though is foolish. I believe laws like this should exist to protect kids with parents that may not be as smart as all you are.


Simply it is not the proper role of government to protect people from themselves or even children from the "potentially" harmful choices of their parents. Honestly, if you think government has that right (as distinguished from protecting children from actual abuse such as beating) THEN a seatbelt law is an impotent triviality. You SHOULD be advocating a vast array of interventions to insure responsible child raising. (Some are.)

It's perfectly decent for you, in addition to being responsible in the first place, to demand children in your care to comply with your rules, to strongly advocate to other parents that they should do the same, etc. But no, we really honestly do not need, nor should have, a system of law and police empowerment to enforce laws like this.

It's heart warming to hear a dose of "get the fu*k out of my life". Hopefully more Americans will get in touch with our independent and defiant roots and return to building a decent society without the use of armed enforcers for every detail of life.

[Damian]

I always wear my seat belt, but I should be able to not wear it if I choose. I just don't see the need for an unknown amount of laws that we have. I would like to know exactly how many laws we do have n

[jedhead]

I don't understand the logic for most of you. Every single one of you says you would always make your kids wear seatbelts, but then in the same breath say you don't think it should be a law. What that tells me is that you're responsible parents. Assuming that every other parent is as responsible though is foolish. I believe laws like this should exist to protect kids with parents that may not be as smart as all you are.

It is a matter of being free. I always wear a seat belt and the car does not move until everyone in it is wearing a seat belt, but that is my choice and I resent the government saying that is not my choice but the law and I will be punished if I don't follow it.

Bob

[SeanPlunk]

Simply it is not the proper role of government to protect people from themselves or even children from the "potentially" harmful choices of their parents. Honestly, if you think government has that right (as distinguished from protecting children from actual abuse such as beating) THEN a seatbelt law is an impotent triviality. You SHOULD be advocating a vast array of interventions to insure responsible child raising. (Some are.)

It's perfectly decent for you, in addition to being responsible in the first place, to demand children in your care to comply with your rules, to strongly advocate to other parents that they should do the same, etc. But no, we really honestly do not need, nor should have, a system of law and police empowerment to enforce laws like this.

It's heart warming to hear a dose of "get the fu*k out of my life". Hopefully more Americans will get in touch with our independent and defiant roots and return to building a decent society without the use of armed enforcers for every detail of life.

Obviously I disagree with you on the role of government and laws. I do not think it's an abuse of power to force me as a parent to make my child where a seatbelt. I understand your slippery slope argument, and I do agree that some laws go to far, but I'm pretty comfortable with the level of government intervention we currently have overall. Besides paying taxes, I can't think of a way the government negatively impacts my life. I would say my biggest gripe about the government by far is its spending, but lack of freedom is not something I'm concerned about.

Can you please list some examples of how the government is screwing you out of your freedom on a daily basis?

[enkeivette]

Pardon, I would actually remove the law for people over 18. I would only make it a law for children.

Sounds like Ben won this one, Sean is still fighting for the tangent though. And I agree with him on the tangent.

[enkeivette]

Can you please list some examples of how the government is screwing you out of your freedom on a daily basis?

My right to paint vehicles outside. My right to use the best automotive paints (which are now legal in every state except CA). My right to run my 650hp mill without catalytic converters. My right to drive as fast as I want pending the conditions are safe. My right to have sex with my girlfriend in public. My right to walk around naked. My right to drink outside on the beach with friends at a bon fire. My right to tell cops to go fuck themselves without being harassed and fined for bullshit. My right to go offroading in undeveloped areas. My right to pee on a tree outside. And now pending: my right to carry firearms, one of the most basic constitutional rights.

[enkeivette]

Oh yeah, my right to talk on a cell phone while the fat guy in traffic next to me is eating a chesseburger, and the whore next to him is putting on her eyeliner, and Ron next to her is watching a DVD in his Cobra.

[enkeivette]

Simply it is not the proper role of government to protect people from themselves or even children from the "potentially" harmful choices of their parents.

I disagree with this completely. We absolutely should have laws in place to protect children from their indigent parents. What about a Dad who drops his daughter off in Tijuana for the night to teach her a lesson? And she then gets raped. Really, the Dad didn't do anything actively harmful to her, the Mexican rapist did. You're suggesting there should be no legal recourse against his recklessness?

[SeanPlunk]

My right to paint vehicles outside. My right to use the best automotive paints (which are now legal in every state except CA). My right to run my 650hp mill without catalytic converters. My right to drive as fast as I want pending the conditions are safe. My right to have sex with my girlfriend in public. My right to walk around naked. My right to drink outside on the beach with friends at a bon fire. My right to tell cops to go fuck themselves without being harassed and fined for bullshit. My right to go offroading in undeveloped areas. My right to pee on a tree outside. And now pending: my right to carry firearms, one of the most basic constitutional rights.

Exactly. Libertarians always ignore externalities. The truth is that in modern day society their is almost no way to do things without affecting someone else. This is why government has to have laws limiting individuals.

[Vettezuki]

Exactly. Libertarians always ignore externalities. The truth is that in modern day society their is almost no way to do things without affecting someone else. This is why government has to have laws limiting individuals.

False. We just pay close attention to the externalities (a.k.a., unintended consequences) of government action much much closer than the rest who just seem to go along "well, it's the best we can do." Nonsense.

BTW, hardcore anarcho-capitalist libertarians, which I'm close to presently, are dead serious about law and order. Our ideal society would certainly have laws (but limited substantially to transgression against real property) and rules like which side of the street to drive on, etc., etc. The notion we're for a total free for all at all times and places is categorically wrong. It's either spewed as propaganda, or a profound misunderstanding of what we're on about. We're just against government as an agent of force to shape society and all the negative externalities they inflict on humanity.

[Vettezuki]

I disagree with this completely. We absolutely should have laws in place to protect children from their indigent parents. What about a Dad who drops his daughter off in Tijuana for the night to teach her a lesson? And she then gets raped. Really, the Dad didn't do anything actively harmful to her, the Mexican rapist did. You're suggesting there should be no legal recourse against his recklessness?

Uh, care to explain to me how these constitute protecting people from themselves? Sounds a lot like fairly clearly protecting one from another in some pretty clear cases doesn't it?

Actually, protecting in the first case, and punishing in the second. The latter is a bit easier to come down on the side against the negligent (and moronic) hypothetical father. Now for a real example, how about a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children based on religious convictions. How about recent cases of optiing out of vaccination? Not easy is it?

BTW, CPS is filled with absolute fuc*king horror stories of taking a child from a non-perfect home and putting them in homes where they get killed. Hot damn! I'd call that a negative consequence.

[Vettezuki]

My right to paint vehicles outside. My right to use the best automotive paints (which are now legal in every state except CA). My right to run my 650hp mill without catalytic converters. My right to drive as fast as I want pending the conditions are safe. My right to have sex with my girlfriend in public. My right to walk around naked. My right to drink outside on the beach with friends at a bon fire. My right to tell cops to go fuck themselves without being harassed and fined for bullshit. My right to go offroading in undeveloped areas. My right to pee on a tree outside. And now pending: my right to carry firearms, one of the most basic constitutional rights.

Oh yeah, my right to talk on a cell phone while the fat guy in traffic next to me is eating a chesseburger, and the whore next to him is putting on her eyeliner, and Ron next to her is watching a DVD in his Cobra.

I've talked with you enough, including your thoughts on the basis of a proper legal code, which I share in principle, and I have some news. You're what most would consider at least a moderate libertarian.

[Damian]

Oh yeah, my right to talk on a cell phone while the fat guy in traffic next to me is eating a chesseburger, and the whore next to him is putting on her eyeliner, and Ron next to her is watching a DVD in his Cobra.

This made me LoL!!

[Vettezuki]

. . . Can you please list some examples of how the government is screwing you out of your freedom on a daily basis?

I don't think Adam was joking quite as much as you think he was, but here's a relatively short list off the top of my head.

Starting from the minor detail that something like 40% of my working life is taken from me (total taxation) without my agreement, which I think is the same as involuntary servitude. This involuntary servitude pays in part the six figure salaries and guaranteed lifetime benefits of people like Barabara Boxer, whom I loathe, etc. etc. etc. Do I have a choice? Nope.

Continuing with that theme:

- Subject to conscription as the government deems necessary. Means the state has primary claim over the disposition of my life. Betcha some wars might have turned out differently if there wasn't a draft, say like Viet Nam. (Nationally) No we don't have a draft, but they reserve the "right".

- Subject to jury service. Not as serious as conscripted military service, but nonetheless is a gun to the head to work for the state . . . directly. Necessary? No. This was recently a giant PITA for my wife. What the fu*k do they care. Obey or else. (Nationally)

- I can drink myself to death, but if I get caught buying pot, I'm in trouble. (Punishments vary. CA may defy the Feds on this. Yeah!)

- The SCOTUS has ruled Police are not responsible for protecting me from criminals. But hey look, in CA I can't carry a concealed weapon to protect myself, especially in the most dangerous counties. (Worst in CA, but mostly national.)

- Unlike Europe, I can't buy fu*king cheese made with whole milk, because some booger eater needs to save the public from the scourge of whole milk. (Nationally)

- If I'm terminally ill and would like to take a treatment available in foreign countries, but not yet admitted by the FDA, they would prefer that I die. This has happened to more than one. What do they care. They're saving the public. Who cares about you. (Nationally)


- The PO has pissed me off a couple times with their poor service for our business. Do I have a choice for first class mail? No. Why? Because the government says so that's why. (Nationally)

- I can't install a Roots or Twin Screw blower on my LSx, because the manufacturers haven't paid appropriate homage. (CA)

- I'm told what currency I must use in business transactions. If I prefer another currency or commodities, etc., I'm not permitted. (Nationally)


These are things that have, do, or plausibly may effect ME directly and personally. A short list, off the top of my head.

- Let's say you're poor, but *own* some property passed to you in your family. You can't pay the property taxes. Howdy. Now you learn who really owns all property. The government (who actually doesn't care about people despite their rhetoric, especially when it comes to collecting revenues) will kick your ass right off your land because your peasant ass couldn't pay homage.

- Let's say you live in an area your government would like to develop (you know, to increase the tax base). Hello eminent domain! Even if you did *own* your land AND paid homage, they'd prefer to have your property. Time to move pumpkin.

If you want some additional insights on government, maybe you can go talk to the Sioux. Turns out that even when the SCOTUS rules in their favor, tough shit.

Getting mad now. Maybe I should stop.

[Damian]

I would like to add to your list, but that would take way too long.

[enkeivette]

Uh, care to explain to me how these constitute protecting people from themselves? Sounds a lot like fairly clearly protecting one from another in some pretty clear cases doesn't it?

Actually, protecting in the first case, and punishing in the second. The latter is a bit easier to come down on the side against the negligent (and moronic) hypothetical father. Now for a real example, how about a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children based on religious convictions. How about recent cases of optiing out of vaccination? Not easy is it?

BTW, CPS is filled with absolute fuc*king horror stories of taking a child from a non-perfect home and putting them in homes where they get killed. Hot damn! I'd call that a negative consequence.

That was purely an example of the law protecting children, if it wasn't clear enough. Which was the first part of what you said.

As far as protecting people from themselves, I don't know if I agree with it, but the law does. If they decide you're suicidal or a looney toon in the hospital, and you refuse treatment, they have a right to tie you down and fix you and then charge you for it.

[enkeivette]

And I wasn't joking, did Sean think I was? I'm sort of lost at this point.

[SeanPlunk]

And I wasn't joking, did Sean think I was? I'm sort of lost at this point.

Yes, I thought you were. If you really think you should be able to do all those things you've listed I've lost some respect for you. Their are very good reasons why you can't do a lot of those.

[enkeivette]

Yes, I thought you were. If you really think you should be able to do all those things you've listed I've lost some respect for you. Their are very good reasons why you can't do a lot of those.

Well at least you got to know me a little better today. ;)

[enkeivette]

And I don't mean having sex in a crowded place. But outside, when no one is around. I had a friend who was peeing on a sand dune in Glamis, no civilization for miles around him. A ranger drove over the dune just then, spotted him and cited him for indecent exposure. That's bullshit.

IMO, the Ranger should have seen him urinating, been respectful and driven around him. Not harassed him.

[enkeivette]

If you guys want to have sex with your wives on the beach at 2 am, in the dark with no one around, you shouldn't be cited as criminals if a cop happens to roll up.

[SeanPlunk]

Starting from the minor detail that something like 40% of my working life is taken from me (total taxation) without my agreement, which I think is the same as involuntary servitude. This involuntary servitude pays in part the six figure salaries and guaranteed lifetime benefits of people like Barabara Boxer, whom I loathe, etc. etc. etc. Do I have a choice? Nope.

I already knew you'd say taxes. I don't think taxes are unreasonable. If you don't want to live in a society with taxes, go start your own.

Continuing with that theme:


- Subject to conscription as the government deems necessary. Means the state has primary claim over the disposition of my life. Betcha some wars might have turned out differently if there wasn't a draft, say like Viet Nam. (Nationally) No we don't have a draft, but they reserve the "right".

I asked about things that impact you on a daily basis. This doesn't. You haven't been drafted and likely never will.


- Subject to jury service. Not as serious as conscripted military service, but nonetheless is a gun to the head to work for the state . . . directly. Necessary? No. This was recently a giant PITA for my wife. What the fu*k do they care. Obey or else. (Nationally)

I've been to jury duty 6 times in the last 10 years. While it is a pain in the ass, it's necessary for our legal system. What's your better idea? Do you want to have professional jurors paid for by your tax dollars? Of course not, then you'd just be complaining about that. So how would you actually address this?


- I can drink myself to death, but if I get caught buying pot, I'm in trouble. (Punishments vary. CA may defy the Feds on this. Yeah!)

This one is stupid and will change during the next state election. Besides, my friend who is a cop told me they won't arrest you for it unless you have a large amount. Do you advocate all drugs should be legal?


- The SCOTUS has ruled Police are not responsible for protecting me from criminals. But hey look, in CA I can't carry a concealed weapon to protect myself, especially in the most dangerous counties. (Worst in CA, but mostly national.)

You can open carry. Go ahead and do it. Why does it need to be concealed? If I saw you with a gun hanging out I'd for sure know not to mess with you.


- Unlike Europe, I can't buy fu*king cheese made with whole milk, because some booger eater needs to save the public from the scourge of whole milk. (Nationally)

I honestly have no idea on this one. I'll have to research to see why it is.


- If I'm terminally ill and would like to take a treatment available in foreign countries, but not yet admitted by the FDA, they would prefer that I die. This has happened to more than one. What do they care. They're saving the public. Who cares about you. (Nationally)

Again, another thing that DOES NOT affect you daily. The FDA is necessary because it turns out you can't just give drugs to people without testing the effects first. If you want to go to the other country to have the treatment you have the right to do so.


- The PO has pissed me off a couple times with their poor service for our business. Do I have a choice for first class mail? No. Why? Because the government says so that's why. (Nationally)

The Postal Services loses money. It's a problem. I'll grant you this one.


- I can't install a Roots or Twin Screw blower on my LSx, because the manufacturers haven't paid appropriate homage. (CA)

Nobody got the kit approved because it's a pain in the ass on the Camaro. You had to lower the K-member to get it to work. You have other options.


- I'm told what currency I must use in business transactions. If I prefer another currency or commodities, etc., I'm not permitted. (Nationally)

Not being able to accept euros must be a real burden in your life? How about get the dollars and then go to a currency exchange place and change them if you want. Perfectly legal.


These are things that have, do, or plausibly may effect ME directly and personally. A short list, off the top of my head.

- Let's say you're poor, but *own* some property passed to you in your family. You can't pay the property taxes. Howdy. Now you learn who really owns all property. The government (who actually doesn't care about people despite their rhetoric, especially when it comes to collecting revenues) will kick your ass right off your land because your peasant ass couldn't pay homage.

I've seen hundreds of people fall behind on property taxes during my time at the credit union. Not once has the government taken their property. It almost always ends up with a tax lien against the property, but the person is still living their.


- Let's say you live in an area your government would like to develop (you know, to increase the tax base). Hello eminent domain! Even if you did *own* your land AND paid homage, they'd prefer to have your property. Time to move pumpkin.

Eminent Domain is tough. I often times don't necessarily agree with it. Let me know when if affects you though.

Overall you have produced a very limited list. Besides taxes the worst things you can say about the government are:

-they could draft you (even though they haven't and most likely never will)
-you have to go to jury duty maybe once a year
-you can't carry a concealed weapon (but can open carry)
-you can't buy pot (even though obtaining a card is easy and then you could)
-the damn FDA won't let you take untested drugs
-the postal service occasionally botches something
-you could only put on a tt kit or centrifugal blower, but not a roots
-they could take your property if you don't pay property taxes (but would probably just lien you)
-Eminent Domain could take your property someday, which again will 99.9% probably never happen

Oh, and you can't buy whole cheese.

These really don't seem like that big of a deal I have to say. It also seems things that do affect you on a daily basis like having paved roads, clean air, water, etc are a much bigger positives than not being able to buy whole cheese. The government is NOT that bad and really this just proves to me that it really doesn't impede you much.

[SeanPlunk]

And I don't mean having sex in a crowded place. But outside, when no one is around. I had a friend who was peeing on a sand dune in Glamis, no civilization for miles around him. A ranger drove over the dune just then, spotted him and cited him for indecent exposure. That's bullshit.

IMO, the Ranger should have seen him urinating, been respectful and driven around him. Not harassed him.

Glamis is public property. He has every right to cite him. If your friend wants to buy a piece of property and pee on every square inch he has every right. Now, if he's in the front yard of his property exposing his penis to kids walking by on the sidewalk, then we have a problem again.

[SeanPlunk]

If you guys want to have sex with your wives on the beach at 2 am, in the dark with no one around, you shouldn't be cited as criminals if a cop happens to roll up.

Again, public property. He has every right to cite us.

[enkeivette]

Glamis is public property. He has every right to cite him. If your friend wants to buy a piece of property and pee on every square inch he has every right. Now, if he's in the front yard of his property exposing his penis to kids walking by on the sidewalk, then we have a problem again.

I pee on my front yard all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with nudity. Nudity for me is sacred in a relationship, but that's it. I'll run down my street naked for a dare or go skinny dipping with drunk friends on a regular basis, unless I'm in a relationship. Then I think it's disrespectful to my gf and I won't do it.

But there are nudist public beaches in much of Europe. And there's nothing wrong with that. Penis is only offensive because we have allowed prudes to impose their bullshit ethical standards on us. There is nothing immoral about nudity. People are even naked in soap commercials in Europe. Pick up a European magazine next time you're at Borders and flip through it.

[enkeivette]

But I think if you have sex on the beach during the day, you should be cited for public disturbance. Or if you pee on the white house gate at noon, cited, because that is gross. But indecent exposure laws IMO are total BS.

[SeanPlunk]

I pee on my front yard all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with nudity. Nudity for me is sacred in a relationship, but that's it. I'll run down my street naked for a dare or go skinny dipping with drunk friends on a regular basis, unless I'm in a relationship. Then I think it's disrespectful to my gf and I won't do it.

But there are nudist public beaches in much of Europe. And there's nothing wrong with that. Penis is only offensive because we have allowed prudes to impose their bullshit ethical standards on us. There is nothing immoral about nudity. People are even naked in soap commercials in Europe. Pick up a European magazine next time you're at Borders and flip through it.

In this case the laws protect people like me from having to see your naked ass. I appreciate them more than ever.

[enkeivette]

In this case the laws protect people like me from having to see your naked ass. I appreciate them more than ever.

LOL

[94cobra69ss396]

Glamis is public property. He has every right to cite him. If your friend wants to buy a piece of property and pee on every square inch he has every right. Now, if he's in the front yard of his property exposing his penis to kids walking by on the sidewalk, then we have a problem again.

So what you're saying Sean is that when I'm out 4 wheeling with my family in the middle of the desert or mountains that I should be sited for indecent exposure if I have to pee? How would you have felt if one of us were sited when we went on the Motorgen offroad trip a couple years ago just because a ranger drove up as someone was peeing? I can understand having the law so that someone doesn't expose themselves in the middle of a public place but not out in the middle of nowhere where there are no restrooms. The ranger who sited Adam's friend was just being a jerk and there are many of them out there.

[Vettezuki]

. . I've been to jury duty 6 times in the last 10 years. While it is a pain in the ass, it's necessary for our legal system. What's your better idea? Do you want to have professional jurors paid for by your tax dollars? Of course not, then you'd just be complaining about that. So how would you actually address this?

It isn't necessarry. We could have a professional jury system or a panel of judges system. It was a PITA because they called Reiko, the owner and operator of a small business whose presence is required at all times still. They didn't care. We'll have to close (because we only make money when we actually do something, apparently a unique concept to some.) We'll lose money and so will our employees. God help us if she gets put on a jury. That's why.


This one is stupid and will change during the next state election. Besides, my friend who is a cop told me they won't arrest you for it unless you have a large amount. Do you advocate all drugs should be legal?

Yes. So do an increasing number of former drug enforcement. Having the laws hasn't stopped the problems anymore than making alcohol illegal did. It has enabled powerful cartels in South America though.



You can open carry. Go ahead and do it. Why does it need to be concealed? If I saw you with a gun hanging out I'd for sure know not to mess with you.


Has to be unloaded. YOu yourself said "what's the point". Remember.



I honestly have no idea on this one. I'll have to research to see why it is. Again, another thing that DOES NOT affect you daily. The FDA is necessary because it turns out you can't just give drugs to people without testing the effects first. If you want to go to the other country to have the treatment you have the right to do so.

The *rule* exists because whole milk has living agents, that if improperly handled can be dangerous. Apparently the Europeans are able to manage.As for being terminally ill, WTF does the government care if someone wants to try something. For the love of Christ, seriously? One more reason to become rich I guess. Many rules do effectively change at that point.



The Postal Services loses money. It's a problem. I'll grant you this one.

The problem is that it's a government granted monopoly for a service. There should be no such thing.


Nobody got the kit approved because it's a pain in the ass on the Camaro. You had to lower the K-member to get it to work. You have other options.

So California won't approve a kit on the grounds a K member has to moved? Brilliant.


Not being able to accept euros must be a real burden in your life? How about get the dollars and then go to a currency exchange place and change them if you want. Perfectly legal.

I can't take foreign currency for payment of service. That's the law. More importantly I wouldn't mind taking silver for direct payment. I can't. These rules did not used to exist and many monies were used in North America. The law (legal tender) were created so the government has greater control over the use and value of money. Because, if they didn't have a monopoly on money, people would flee from their currency when their monetary policy was poor. It'd be an excellent hedge against bad monetary policy. It is in principle, the same reason we keep the Forex markets (a value hedge) and the reason some are particularly pushing for a single global currency, a completely free hand on money supply.


I've seen hundreds of people fall behind on property taxes during my time at the credit union. Not once has the government taken their property. It almost always ends up with a tax lien against the property, but the person is still living their.

It's the law. It can and does happen. A lot, perhaps not. That it can happen at all is wrong.


Eminent Domain is tough. I often times don't necessarily agree with it. Let me know when if affects you though.

The idea is to fight bloody murder long BEFORE anything gets to you. Duh.


Overall you have produced a very limited list. Besides taxes the worst things you can say about the government are:

-they could draft you (even though they haven't and most likely never will)

Shouldn't exist.

-you have to go to jury duty maybe once a year

Shouldn't exist.

-you can't carry a concealed weapon (but can open carry)

Fairly pointless as you yourself have noted.

-you can't buy pot (even though obtaining a card is easy and then you could)

Getting better!

-the damn FDA won't let you take untested drugs

Serious. Stop protecting me from myself. Who are you, my mother?

-the postal service occasionally botches something

It's a federal grant of monopoly power. Shouldn't exist.

-you could only put on a tt kit or centrifugal blower, but not a roots

Not a big deal, but think about why there is a block.

-they could take your property if you don't pay property taxes (but would probably just lien you)

*Probably* is really reassuring to those in those positions.

-Eminent Domain could take your property someday, which again will 99.9% probably never happen

Shouldn't exist, or MASSIVELY limited. It's regularly abused.

Oh, and you can't buy whole cheese.

You think it's funny, but it's related to a government that thinks it's a parent. That's not funny.

These really don't seem like that big of a deal I have to say. It also seems things that do affect you on a daily basis like having paved roads, clean air, water, etc are a much bigger positives than not being able to buy whole cheese. The government is NOT that bad and really this just proves to me that it really doesn't impede you much.

As for how I actually live my life, they're mostly a nuisance, not a profound block. My biggest complaints against government are economic. They're fu*king that up bad. If they do it bad enough, it'll effect us all quite a lot.

[Vettezuki]

And I wasn't joking, did Sean think I was? I'm sort of lost at this point.

Yes he did. I knew you weren't. I enjoyed that part. :)

[enkeivette]

We do have a panel of judges system sort of, if a judge believes no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise, he can take the case from them.

But I like the jury system, it's supposed to represent a random unbiased opinion of society. If we had professional jurors they would get used to the job, and form prejudices.

Juries decide facts, not law in case anyone was wondering.

[Vettezuki]

We do have a panel of judges system sort of, if a judge believes no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise, he can take the case from them.

But I like the jury system, it's supposed to represent a random unbiased opinion of society. If we had professional jurors they would get used to the job, and form prejudices.

Juries decide facts, not law in case anyone was wondering.

I wouldn't object if it were voluntary jury service. I've heard many people say they'd be curious to serve on a jury and see the system in action. Great. Put your name in a pool. Or possibly required as a function of receiving government benefits, like unemployment or something like that. That they snatch people out of productive lives against there will is nothing short of slavery. Period. How something can be immoral for one to do, but become moral for a group or government is beyond me.

You're worried they may form prejudices. They've already got those and I don't think we need to go into too much detail about that do we? On the other hand, they would form expertise and wouldn't have to have a million things explained to them on every case. It would, whether you agree with it or not., be a substantial increase in efficiency, something the court system could use.

[SeanPlunk]

Basically I see a bunch of scarecrow arguments.

Ben, please show me:

-A developed country with no taxes (or even substantially lower than us).
-A developed country with no gun laws.
-A developed country without significant limitations on food and drugs.
-A developed country without it's own currency.

You won't be able to. The reason is that modern society dictates these things are necessary. The way you think it should be is simply not possible. You're taking human nature out of the equation and that's why you're wrong. The system you advocate can simply not exist for a large populous regardless of what you say.

[SeanPlunk]

So what you're saying Sean is that when I'm out 4 wheeling with my family in the middle of the desert or mountains that I should be sited for indecent exposure if I have to pee? How would you have felt if one of us were sited when we went on the Motorgen offroad trip a couple years ago just because a ranger drove up as someone was peeing? I can understand having the law so that someone doesn't expose themselves in the middle of a public place but not out in the middle of nowhere where there are no restrooms. The ranger who sited Adam's friend was just being a jerk and there are many of them out there.

No, I misread it. Indecent exposure in that case is insane. I thought it was for urinating in public.

[SeanPlunk]

A few quick other points:

-If you think the FDA is unnecessary and drug makers should be able to sell whatever they want as long as people will take it, you're crazy. That might be their choice, but that's one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard you advocate.
-You could make a CARB legal kit for the Camaro I'm sure. Nobody has done it because it's difficult. Why don't you make one and put it through? Nobody is stopping you just because it hasn't been done.

Seriously, if things were run the way you want them to be, the country would be a screwed place. I can only imagine what kind of food we would have with no regulation.

[enkeivette]

I wouldn't object if it were voluntary jury service. I've heard many people say they'd be curious to serve on a jury and see the system in action. Great. Put your name in a pool. Or possibly required as a function of receiving government benefits, like unemployment or something like that. That they snatch people out of productive lives against there will is nothing short of slavery. Period. How something can be immoral for one to do, but become moral for a group or government is beyond me.

You're worried they may form prejudices. They've already got those and I don't think we need to go into too much detail about that do we? On the other hand, they would form expertise and wouldn't have to have a million things explained to them on every case. It would, whether you agree with it or not., be a substantial increase in efficiency, something the court system could use.

Since jurors decide fact, not law, you don't need to explain anything to them. And yes, everyone is biased in some way, but having random different biases is what makes it fair. Also, if juries were only voluntary then it's no longer random and representative of society. Because only certain kinds of people will opt to volunteer.

[enkeivette]

No, I misread it. Indecent exposure in that case is insane. I thought it was for urinating in public.

That is urinating in public. How is it different from being on the beach at 2am? I've run into more people offroading in the desert than I have walking down the beach at 2 am.

[Vettezuki]

Basically I see a bunch of scarecrow arguments.

Not a single scarecrow argument. I don't think you know what that means.



Ben, please show me:

-A developed country with no taxes (or even substantially lower than us).

Substantially Lower Personal Taxation

Hong Kong (yes, the city state absorbed by the People's Republic.) Singapore. Taiwan. Finland for that matter. The rapidly growing economies in the former Soviet Block of Eastern Europe like the Czech Republic, etc. Oh, and zero in the United States up until the 20th Century. Not a small or simple place. Human nature didn't change between then and now either.


-A developed country with no gun laws.

None. But they vary widely around the world and there are some curious, counter-intuitive examples. In Switzerland EVERYONE owns a gun by law.

-A developed country without significant limitations on food and drugs.

Varies a great deal. Europe in many cases is far less restrictive. We used to have effectively none and somehow survived and developed. Dive deep into the basis of the laws and you'll find, contrary to popular opinion, two large factions: 1) pietists who wanted to save the world and keep people from hurting themselves, and not a small amount of straight up racism 2) large pharmaceutical type companies that wanted protected business. Kind of like how the recent legislation profoundly protects brand name pharmaceuticals. Some socialists (i.e., not libertarians) have done a lot of research in this area and agree. It's not at all quite what you think it is.


-A developed country without it's own currency.

It's fine they all have their own currency. It's the protection from the use of anything BUT THEIR currency for private transactions that I object to. This used to be the case in much of the world. It was changed by force, not by the choice of the people. We can't even use a gold clause in large international contracts. What are you so worried about? If the domestic currency is sound, of course most people would use it for convenience. The people who make these laws know what the real problem is and it involves their power, not protecting the public in the slightest. It's not at all quite what you think it is.

You won't be able to. The reason is that modern society dictates these things are necessary.

False. Some people dictate it to other people and they use guns and cages to make it happen. To a great extent the masses are pawned and brainwashed into believing a lot things are necessary that in fact are not.

"It is our intent to make them as unlike their fathers as possible." - (POS) Woodrow Wilson

It's taken a long time and there is, thankfully, increasing resistance in the US and even Europe to government power. David Cameron's election in the UK was a bit of a surprise for example. Here in the States there are a number of candidates who are doing well who are decidedly more freedom and less government oriented.

You're taking human nature out of the equation and that's why you're wrong. The system you advocate can simply not exist for a large populous regardless of what you say.

Indeed I am talking about human nature, and it is FULLY in the equation. Starting with the obvious, but routinely ignored fact that those who constitute government aren't immune to it!

And here's the great part. The system as it is in the developed world is in fact murdering itself, and we're probably leading the way. Watch what happens to your precious government ordered society when the gig is up. Imagine Greece without a power to bail them out. Then what? The same ideas you advocate underly a number of economic fallacies of government action. That can't go on indefinitely and ultimately will stop one way or another. That's not going to be pretty for anyone and it doesn't have to be. Fortunately, it's not just me out here on the frontier and there are some encouraging signs of defiance.

I'm not saying we're North Korea. Nor do I think we'll just transport into a fully libertarian society. But we sure as hell better knock it off with the screwy economics and get realistic about some of the ideas underlying the bad choices. That's for sure. The same people who think it's fine to stick a gun in your face to make you wear a seat belt are the same ones who think we need numerous economic interventions and planning of varying degrees, to make things neat, orderly, and safe. Peas in a pod. They are genuinely dangerous.

[Vettezuki]

-You could make a CARB legal kit for the Camaro I'm sure. Nobody has done it because it's difficult. Why don't you make one and put it through? Nobody is stopping you just because it hasn't been done.

Guess who loves the CARB cert process? You guessed it, the big boys like Edlebrock? Why? It puts smaller less well capitalized competitors out of business. This is to a great extent the history of regulatory law in the US. You think it's about protecting you don't you.

How about a sensible law, one based on the object of the law. That is the emissions your car actually puts out. The individual's implementation of power plant is irrelevant. Pass the sniffer. If it's a turbine that burns peanut butter, what does it matter.

I can only imagine what kind of food we would have with no regulation.

Good food. Like bacon wrapped hot dogs that used to be sold in LA for decades and decades. Not anymore. Some nanny decided that in order to sell bacon wrapped hot dogs you'd have to have a $26,000 specialized cart. Mind you, the public kept going back to the same vendors for years and years. The government shut them down. Can you explain why? I can't. I can drown you in examples like this.

[Vettezuki]

Since jurors decide fact, not law, you don't need to explain anything to them.

There are often extensive jury instructions given. Also, there is a long and drawn out jury selection process for each case. This could be substantially simplified and all of the taxpayer funded overhead eliminated.

And yes, everyone is biased in some way, but having random different biases is what makes it fair. Also, if juries were only voluntary then it's no longer random and representative of society. Because only certain kinds of people will opt to volunteer.

In reality, juries are never going to be a representative sample of society because attorneys are goddamned careful about who they pick to put on them. If it were a truly random sample of the population, with no culling, then you might have a point. As it is, you really don't IMO.

This is besides the point for me. I'm not property of the state. You can ask me to serve. You can't force me (morally).

[enkeivette]

There are often extensive jury instructions given. Also, there is a long and drawn out jury selection process for each case. This could be substantially simplified and all of the taxpayer funded overhead eliminated.



In reality, juries are never going to be a representative sample of society because attorneys are goddamned careful about who they pick to put on them. If it were a truly random sample of the population, with no culling, then you might have a point. As it is, you really don't IMO.

This is besides the point for me. I'm not property of the state. You can ask me to serve. You can't force me (morally).

I know all about jury instruction. Those instructions are given to remove the law questions from the facts, jurors are often taken down a multiple choice path in deciding the facts, so at the end the question of law is obvious.

Attorneys do not pick juries. They are allowed to remove jury members for non-prejudiced reasons. But still random, just a selected pool of the random.

[Vettezuki]

. . .Attorneys do not pick juries. They are allowed to remove jury members for non-prejudiced reasons. But still random, just a selected pool of the random.

:picard: That hurts my brain. If I throwout a handful of change that randomly falls on the ground and remove all the nickels and dimes, exactly how random is it? Selection by exclusion. A jury will NEVER have me on it. I will always be excluded. (Haven't been called in 10 years since the last time since I stated my opinion when asked.)

Again, my principle objection is the compulsory nature of the service, not the concept of a jury per se.

[enkeivette]

:picard: That hurts my brain. If I throwout a handful of change that randomly falls on the ground and remove all the nickels and dimes, exactly how random is it? Selection by exclusion. A jury will NEVER have me on it. I will always be excluded. (Haven't been called in 10 years since the last time since I stated my opinion when asked.)

Again, my principle objection is the compulsory nature of the service, not the concept of a jury per se.

You're defending a black rapist with a prior. Your perrogative is to select only black males in their 20s.

You have a room full of 19 jurors, you're allowed to cut at least three, so is the prosecution, without cause. The prosecution cuts the only three black males in their twenties.

You're left with an old black woman, asians, whites and mexicans. Please select as many black males in their twenties as you can. Go.

[enkeivette]

What the lawyers do is only get rid of those they believe will be the most prejudicial to their side, the rest is random, no doubt.

[enkeivette]

Jury duty is a more direct form of paying taxes. You want to drive on the road, give up some of your paycheck. You want firefighters to hose your burning ass off, give it up. You want a jury to be there for you when you need a trial, give up your time for someone else.

[enkeivette]

When I think of bacon wrapped hot dogs my heart hurts.

[Vettezuki]

You're defending a black rapist with a prior. Your perrogative is to select only black males in their 20s.

You have a room full of 19 jurors, you're allowed to cut at least three, so is the prosecution, without cause. The prosecution cuts the only three black males in their twenties.

You're left with an old black woman, asians, whites and mexicans. Please select as many black males in their twenties as you can. Go.

And how many cases throughout history have been contested or were controversial because the jury wasn't suffeciently representive of the accused? What you state still ain't random. It's an attempt at something like randomness.

And one more time. My objection isn't the objective of a jury system (a perfectly noble and in fact classically liberal/libertarian objective of equality before the law, etc.) it is to the conscriptive nature. That's it really. It is a higher value to me to not be forced to do something I object to than the utilitarian arguments in favor of conscriptive jury service. That's all really.

[enkeivette]

And how many cases throughout history have been contested or were controversial because the jury wasn't suffeciently representive of the accused? What you state still ain't random. It's an attempt at something like randomness.

And one more time. My objection isn't the objective of a jury system (a perfectly noble and in fact classically liberal/libertarian objective of equality before the law, etc.) it is to the conscriptive nature. That's it really. It is a higher value to me to not be forced to do something I object to than the utilitarian arguments in favor of conscriptive jury service. That's all really.

It's a tax, and you don't like it. I sort of want to get jury duty this summer.

[Vettezuki]

. . You haven't been drafted and likely never will. . .

Just a bit of history. It was a libertarian of a stripe, Milton Friedman, author of Free to Choose who lead the charge for an all volunteer, non-conscription based armed service. Now if we strike all authority to conscript, we'll have something.

[Vettezuki]

It's a tax, and you don't like it. I sort of want to get jury duty this summer.

You volunteer for it. I opt out. We're both happy. Whattaya think? Or is a faux-randomness of jury selection more important than my choice?

[Vettezuki]

Jury duty is a more direct form of paying taxes. You want to drive on the road, give up some of your paycheck. You want firefighters to hose your burning ass off, give it up. You want a jury to be there for you when you need a trial, give up your time for someone else.

My first preference is to pay for whatever I want/need to the greatest extent possible, have things taken/given to the minimal extents possible.

My second is for my taxes to pay for a professional and/or volunteer jury. Same for an army. No conscription. If I want to be a soldier or jurist, I'll let you know.

[SeanPlunk]

I'm done with this, but I still maintain a Libertarian style society is not possible and could only exist in a vacuum.

I do know what a scarecrow argument is for the record :p

[Vettezuki]

. . .I do know what a scarecrow argument is for the record :p

I know you do. You made one when you asked about what country doesn't have a currency. Has nothing to do with what I was asserting :p

And, do not fear, prepare for liberation from the hateful bondage of the state. . . . commie. ;)

[Vettezuki]

. . .And, do not fear, prepare for liberation from the hateful bondage of the state. . . . commie. ;)

I won't stop until Adam can paint his car outside naked while I watch eating a bacon wrapped hot dog sold from an unlicensed street vendor. Wait, that didn't come out quite the way I meant. :ugh:

[enkeivette]

Ben, yes, more important than your freedom IMO. Sorry.

So I think we can all agree, seat belts should not be required by law for adults. While some think it should be a legal requirement for children and others don't.



My great aunt, my grandma's twin sister, was actually thrown from a car because she was not wearing a seatbelt and a train hit her car after the pile up, so had she been stuck in there by her seatbelt she would likely have died.

She refused to wear seatbelts after that. Still stupid IMO. Sort of like popping pills randomly and curing some disease you didn't know that you had, and swearing that for the rest of your life you will pop pills at random. Not solid logic IMO.

I always wear a seatbelt. Although sometimes when I drive without a shirt I put the shoulder belt under my arm, which is probably worse than not wearing one at all. Does anyone know?

[Vettezuki]

Ben, yes, more important than your freedom IMO. Sorry.

Just keep thinking about what the goal of the system is and if there is a better more moral way to achieve it. It's not more important than freedom, mine or ANYBODY elses', IMO. It's also not necessary to achieve the intended goal of justice or equal protection under the law. Frankly, if I were accused of a crime, I'd prefer to have a jury relatively expert in the technical fields of evidence that are becoming increasingly important.

So I think we can all agree, seat belts should not be required by law for adults.

The fact even Sean concedes this point is encouraging. We're still in a sorta okay range.

While some think it should be a legal requirement for children and others don't.

I'll even admit this suggests a grey area. I just take the hardcore position because if you follow that line very far, it gets very odd very fast.

[jedhead]

Wearing the seat belt under your arm is dangerous because your rib cage could get damaged possibly causing internal bleeding. Also wearing your seat belt while reclined in your seat can cause decapitation as you submarine under your seat belt.

Bob