[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

. . 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]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

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]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

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]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

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]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[94cobra69ss396]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.