Restraining Civil Liberties
Mississippi has recently passed a primary offense seatbelt law, which will take effect in a few months. Before that, the only way a cop was able to give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt was by tacking it on to another offense, such as speeding. In other words, they couldn't look over, see that you weren't wearing a seatbelt, and write you a ticket. Now they can.
I have a problem with this. I don't think that a driver should have any legal duty to buckle up. His actions hurt no one but himself, and his destiny lies in his hands. (Passengers and children, on the other hand, should have to, since they are at the whims of the driver.)
I'm a safe driver- whether or not I wear a seatbelt won't change that fact. When a gravel truck is barrelling toward me at sixty-miles per hour, I don't think to myself, "I've got my seat belt on, so I can chance it." Likewise, I don't drive more safely when I don't have a seatbelt on. I drive safe regardless.
I'm pretty sure that eating a lot of high cholesterol foods is more dangerous than eating a healthy diet. But it's not illegal to eat the high cholesterol foods- why is driving without a seatbelt?
Freedom includes being able to (legally) make stupid decisions that hurt no one but ourselves.
I guess I have a problem when the government decides to police my actions for no good reason. If they really had a vested interest in my life, they'd only allow healthy foods at the grocery store and reduce the speed limit on the interstate. This is too arbitrary for me to stomach. Even though it makes statistical sense that I wear one, that doesn't mean I should be forced to do it.
I'm going to look at the statute and see if there's anyway around it. Politicians always create a loophole.
I have a problem with this. I don't think that a driver should have any legal duty to buckle up. His actions hurt no one but himself, and his destiny lies in his hands. (Passengers and children, on the other hand, should have to, since they are at the whims of the driver.)
I'm a safe driver- whether or not I wear a seatbelt won't change that fact. When a gravel truck is barrelling toward me at sixty-miles per hour, I don't think to myself, "I've got my seat belt on, so I can chance it." Likewise, I don't drive more safely when I don't have a seatbelt on. I drive safe regardless.
I'm pretty sure that eating a lot of high cholesterol foods is more dangerous than eating a healthy diet. But it's not illegal to eat the high cholesterol foods- why is driving without a seatbelt?
Freedom includes being able to (legally) make stupid decisions that hurt no one but ourselves.
I guess I have a problem when the government decides to police my actions for no good reason. If they really had a vested interest in my life, they'd only allow healthy foods at the grocery store and reduce the speed limit on the interstate. This is too arbitrary for me to stomach. Even though it makes statistical sense that I wear one, that doesn't mean I should be forced to do it.
I'm going to look at the statute and see if there's anyway around it. Politicians always create a loophole.
posted by Yorick at 8:54 AM
1 Comments:
MA just did the same thing. I went to the debate in our State House of Representatives. They mentioned the fact that MS had just passed a law, and one of the arguments for passing it here was "come on, we can't be behind Mississippi!!"
The reasons for: 1) It puts an economic burden on others. The costs involved when someone is injured by being ejected from their car are astronomically higher than even the best health insurance will cover, and often the injured person ends up on the state sponsored health insurance -- millions and millions of dollars worth.
2) an 18 year old girl died. it was sad. she was a nice girl. she was respectful to her parents. then she hit a tree, and she died. "if this law had been in force on that day, she would not have died!" (in case you were curious, I heard absolutely ZERO evidence that a police officer was parked on the street where her accident took place, who would have then been able to pull her over and force her to put her seatbelt on prior to hitting the tree)
3) teenagers are reckless.
4) there are over 350 traffic regulations on the books - what's one more?
5) an 18 year old girl DIED!!!!
6) This is a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY - not a matter of civil liberties.
__________________
i had problems with almost every argument. Please take your emotional manipulations out of law-making (first); please stop throwing around the word "public safety" as a catch-all intended to make people stop questioning actions of dubious constitutionality (second); the whole thing about the girl who wouldn't have DIED! if this law was in place - what I said up there (third); none of the other 350 traffic regulations require a police officer to go peering inside your car. Just like none of the other laws I see on the books entitle a police officer to come strolling into your house to be sure you aren't violating one of them (fourth). As far as the economic argument goes - I don't really have a retort on the merits - just to say that economic arguments never win me over. it's selfish and materialistic. a representative did say the same thing you did in response - then let's outlaw fast food. certainly the "epidemic" of diabetes is costing more than the injuries sustained during an accident where someone is ejected from their car. i can't agree with justifications based on cost. it just strips the humanity, morality, empathy, respect and independence out of decision-making.
Post a Comment
<< Home