mimo2005

Live Free Or Die

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AC0894DF404482

Zazula

In this link, one doesn't need to buy the article in order to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

^^^ THE definition of STUPIDITY ^^^ I wonder if the Law shouldn't be allowed in any form in NH, since it "tells adults what to do". BOUNDLESS, IMMENSE ABSURDITY!

Drew1369

We live where the little choices the adult is allowed to make... shows that some states still put a limit on government intrusions into the private life... you don't want to wear a seatbelt and risk YOUR life thats your choice... not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt anyone but the person not wearing it

mimo2005

The people who loves to be told what to do had never tasted freedom .

Zazula

This is exemplary of how twisted and transvestite the definition of "freedom" is in the States... Government intrusion into private life? You gotta be kiddin', right?

If my employee refuses to wear a seat belt and dies as a result of this, then his/her death hurts my business and my income and my own American Dream, too!
If my employer refuses to wear a seat belt and dies as a result of this, then his/her death hurts my income and my financial stability and my family's food and my own American Dream, too!
If my subcontractor refuses to wear a seat belt and dies as a result of this, then his/her death hurts my ability to deliver on time and my income and my own American Dream, too!
If my client-company onwer refuses to wear a seat belt and dies as a result of this, then his/her death hurts my ability to receive payments and my cashflow and my own American Dream, too!

And if that stupid fella who refused to wear a seat belt, as a result of his/her own absurdity and because he/she (unfortunately, instead of being killed on the spot) got seriously hurt (and not lightly hurt as he/she could have been if buckled up, and thus able to walk away from the accident scene) consumes up the local emergency-help and hospital and ER and paramedic resources and my kid who needs to be hospitralised due to another reason is lost because of this, then you'll know where the boundaries of "intrusion into private life" lie and where they don't!

yustr

I'm with Zazula on this one. As we tell our teenagers: driving is a privilege not a right. When you agree to drive on State roads, you agree to all manner of "Government Intrusion"; speed limits, stop signs, no passing lanes, etc. To separate a seatbelt requirement from all the rest is just silliness.

Maybe it's a protest over all of the other - real - intrusions taking place and, if so, I applaud the good citizens of New Hampshire.

Remember: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Can we still hold this up as our supreme goal?

bruiser

People who don't wear their seat belts, and motorcyclists who won't wear a helmet, are also known as organ donors.

RedScott

lol.

Hey, if your employee drowns in a swimming pool that might hurt you too. Better ban swimming pools as well.

I think that dream died about 150 years a go. Government IS force. Seatbelt laws are silly nanny state nonsense.

Zazula

I mean, I can't believe you, people... You're banning smoking which is far less lethal than an accident with no seatbelt on (and I'm saying this as a non-smoker), and you have a problem with a law requiring you to buckle up...

My question is this: If you say the seatbelt law is nonsense, do you buckle up your kids and WHY?

RedScott

Well there are plenty of us who think the smoking laws are just as lame as the seatbelt laws.

For the record I'm a non-smoker who always buckles up.

Drew1369

All seatbelt laws are written as secondary offenses MEANING that a police officer cannot pull you over if he sees you without a seatbelt... thats what it is here in Nevada. So all it is, is a money generator... just another checkbox the cop fills out and a higher dollar figure on the ticket...

I have no problem with seatbelt laws... but if you are going to make a law about it, do it right... pull over that mother thats letting her kid jump around the backseat not wait and make sure she brakes a primary traffic law first!

Tumbleweed36

Here in Indiana, it is not like it is in Nevada. If an officer of the law observes you without a seatbelt, they can pull you over and ticket you. It is called the "click it or ticket" program.

They even have "seat belt enforcement" areas where you go through an area where they are checking. The funny thing about those, they have a sign down the road about a 1/8 mile that says "seatbelt enforcement zone" or buckle up quick before they stop you.

While I don't agree on government intrusion (we already have too much of that), the seatbelt thing makes a lot of sense. There are so many people who don't have insurance and when they don't wear seatbelts, You, me, and other taxpayers pick up those medical costs and services for severe injuries that are not necessary. Therefore, it is logic that it DOES harm others rather than just the person who is too naive to wear a seatbelt.

Society in general is also concerned about infants/children and if their rights are protected. Well, if the parents are not wearing seatbelts and the parents are killed, who is going to take care of those kids? Is there a cost to society if that child receives Social Security or services because of the death of his/her parents? Who is also going to protect those children, because if not wearing a seatbelt restraint, the child has been harmed or possibly killed when not necessary. Does having an irresponsible parent provide safety to that child while in an automobile? Gee, even parents who neglect their children can be locked up, so isn't not wearing a seatbelt kind of like neglect?

I wonder if those same people who object also don't buckle up when an airplane is taking off or landing? I have not had a time when it was necessary under normal circumstances, so why the heck should one buckle up? I mean, if you don't want someone to tell you what to do, then why not try to change that mandate?

Darn it, I hate to admit it, but I am with Zazula all the way on this one.

Zazula

Hey, Tumble, and I was under the impression we agree on about nine out of ten things that exist out there.

Tumbleweed36

Wellllllllllllllllll, Maybe 8 out of 10.

Zazula

I didn't use the "medical costs for the uninsured burden all taxpayers" argument, because I thought this wasn't applicable to the United States - otherwise that's my top argument in countries with strong social provisionings. And I agree the social welfare for the deceased parents' children is an extremely strong argument, too.

RedScott

Yes, obviously when the State pays a large portion of the medical bills they have a vested interest in the health of it’s citizens. This, however, should be a reason to abolish such State funded medical plans, not to abolish more individual rights.

If people want to live in such a managerial State that designates and regulates every aspect of our personal lives, what we can eat, what we can drink, what we can smoke, where we can go, and ultimately what we can think, (and increasingly it appears this truly is what the general population wants) then we should simply re-write the constitution and stop calling ourselves a constitutional republic.

Our country was founded on the ideals of Liberalism. That individual rights are the highest importance and that the State is in existence by our will and for the sole purpose of securing those individual rights. Not to manage every aspect of our lives BY FORCE at the threat of fine or imprisonment. That’s what’s known as authoritianism, not liberalism.

Yet we live increasingly in that very society with the State ever increasing in size and scope and always asking for more of our capital to fund it’s ever expanding bureaucracy. And to what end? When will the welfare/warfare State finish it’s growth? The answer seems to be obvious; when they run out of money. Which appears to be sooner rather than later as we inflate to pay for Medicare and Social Security, and borrow billions from China to pay for an unsustainable foreign policy of intervention. And when it does end it’ll be much more painful than a costs to the sum of society will be much more painful than the dead driver who may or may not have been saved from buckling his seatbelt.

So “no” to seatbelt laws, smoking laws, trans-fat bans, or any other number of nanny-state laws that decrease liberty and increase the State, because you can’t have both.

k, thnx

Tumbleweed36

Zazula, you are wrong about the tax burden in the USA. No hospital that works within the framework of federal support (about 96% of them do) can refuse medical treatment for those that are uninsured. If someone (that is why we have a problem with the undocumented workers, it is called all service and no pay for medical services) is taken to the emergency room, they HAVE to treat them at taxpayer's expense.

Any person, insured or not can walk, be carried, or transported in pieces to any emergency room, and they MUST treat them FREE if they have no insurance and are not able to pay. That is the law.

In the USA, if someone loses their parent(s), there are eligible Social Security (SSI) benefits that are paid until that child reaches the age of being an adult. That is quite a burden on other taxpayers.

What this is called is that in a civilized society, we expect people to be smart enough to buckle up, but sadly, that is not the case. Have a great day.

40sondacurb

The Hospitals write off uninsured patients on their taxes.

devil lady

The question arises as to wether you would prefer to have a few scrapes and bruises in an accident or be thrown from the vehicle and either killed or permanently incapacitated for the rest of your life. I know how I would feel if my child was killed or in a wheelchair for life because I didn't want a law telling us we had to wear seatbelts.
Seatbelts save lives, that's why they put them in cars.

Drew1369

We aren't debating the usefulness of seatbelts... I know what they can provide first hand experice.

What we are discussing is whether the government should make you wear them...

Personally, I wear them all the time and wont even remove park until everyone in my car is wearing them.