Stupid Laws

I believe that where I live in New Jersey, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense so u can't be pulled over for it. but i have problems with saying anything anit-Nader so I'm going to plead the fifth...

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that where I live in New Jersey, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense so u can't be pulled over for it. but i have problems with saying anything anit-Nader so I'm going to plead the fifth...

[/ QUOTE ]
i got pulled over for no seatbelt during the clickitorticket campaign. i think they can pull you over just for seatbelts now because i dont think they could have pulled me for it during the campaign otherwise

[Lestat]

The problem comes in when I have to go to jail for violating #1, because under your system someone invoked their legal right to engage in #2 or #3, but proved to be an irresponsible moron and killed one of my loved ones.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

not wearing a seat belt is also pretty stupid.

I agree that seatbelt and other similar laws are unreasonable violations of personal freedom. That said, I wonder if an exception should be made for single parents. If a parent is the sole provider of a child, the government may have to provide care for the child in the event of the parent's death. Thus, it does not seem necessarily unreasonable to me to require such people to wear seatbelts, as minimizing their chance of death would minimize the cost to taxpayers.

Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children, but assuming that that is never going to change, it seems like single parents have a bigger obligation to minimize their chances of dying than people with no dependents.

But other than this possible exception, I do think seat belt laws are ludicrous.

The problem with this dogr - is you can take any single action and rightly link it to an impact on other people, since nobody lives in a vacuum. Getting a bad haircut, masturbation, consuming fast food etc. And I'm not suggesting these links aren't real. But if we legislate based on secondary, tertiary etc consequence, we have reasonable grounds to outlaw anything we find distasteful, anything that has political utility to a particular legislator, anything at all, and this is happening. We have to draw the line at 'direct' consequences.

Marko: I just fundamentally disagree with you. I'm not convinced your assessment on the impact of legalising drugs is anything close to correct, but even if it is, so be it, civil liberties are infinitely more important to me. That's the consequence of having a government that treats it's citizens as adults, these issues should not be the domain of legislative bodies. Many people are stupid, or make bad choices, on issues that only harm themselves, or only 'maybe possibly' harm others through a complex series of degrees of seperation. Not hindering that process is the essence of of a free society.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we just burn the orphaned children like firewood then?

Sorry kids your parents, and only known living relatives, died in a horrible accident. There is apparently about $35 in a savings account to hold you over. Here's a 50 cent cardboard box, it should hold all three of you -- I mean how big is a 4 year old?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we just burn the orphaned children like firewood then?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I just don't think other people should be forced to pay for their care through taxation. If a parent doesn't have a friend or relative that can raise their children if necessary, they should buy life insurance. If that is not an option, hopefully they can live in a private orphanage. If someone has absolutely no means for a contingency plan, perhaps that person should not be having children.

I agree 100%. #2 and #3 irritate me to no end. Usually they are ineffective as well as patronizing (see gun control, "war on drugs," etc.).

[DrButch]

"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save people huge amounts of money in reduced unpaid hospital bills and reduced utilization of medical facilities.

It's one thing to say "dumb people who don't use helmets deserve what they get". If that were the only reason to have helmet laws, then it essentially is a limitation of a person's rights. However it's another thing to say that *I* have to pay for their stupidity. Suddenly it becomes a societal issue and the laws deserve to be on the books.