Hood.

[BellyTank]

Fair enough comrade- not directly at you-
but I don't see the harm with enforcing it if you're gonna do it anyway.
It is common sense. I don't see enforcement of restraint as revenue collection- urban and suburban pay parking- that's a rude form of revenue collection.
In NZ it's law to wear a cycle helmet when you're riding- a lot of people don't like that but again- it's just saving peoples' lives when they may think they know better. Seems that people like to rebel against laws, even when they're common sense... Lots of cycle accidents end in vegetative hospital brain cases.

Cycle+vehicle+momentum+hitting the road= brainsquash

...more common sense.

B
T

 

[Dismuke]

Fair enough comrade- not directly at you-
but I don't see the harm with enforcing it if you're gonna do it anyway.
It is common sense. I don't see enforcement of restraint as revenue collection- urban and suburban pay parking- that's a rude form of revenue collection.
In NZ it's law to wear a cycle helmet when you're riding- a lot of people don't like that but again- it's just saving peoples' lives when they may think they know better.

I don't dispute for a moment that wearing a seat belt or a helmet is common sense. But that is not the issue. The issue is: does your life belong to YOU - or does it belong to the State? '

If it belongs to you, then, so long as you do not injure other people or defraud them, your life is YOURS to do with as you wish - and that includes being careless with it or even deliberately destroying it.

I, for one, don't think of human beings as being "public property." It is simply not the government's business if you wish to destroy yourself - again, so long as you refrain from harming other people.

There are a LOT of forms of behavior that go against common sense.

Refusing to eat healthy and not get enough exercise goes against common sense and can kill. Does that, therefore, justify trampling over individual rights creating an authoritarian nanny state to protect us from ourselves and dictate what we may and may not eat and compell us to exercise so many hours per week at the point of a gun?

If you sleep around indiscriminately you can acquire various social diseases - some of which can kill you. Obviously such behavior goes against common sense. Should the State, therefore, regulate who people sleep with?

If you look back on the history of the 20th century, far more people lost their lives at the hands of authoritarian governments which justified their existence on the premise that it is proper to sacrifice individual rights in the name of some allegedly greater "common good" than have ever been killed by not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets.

Laws requiring people to wear seatbelts and helmets may seem mild and not especially totalitarian - which, in the scheme of things, is true. But what is dangerous and downright deadly are the premises upon which such laws are based - specifically that individual rights are subordinate to some sort of greater good. Once that premise is fully and consistently put into practice, what you have is a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao etc. - with the only essential difference between them being exactly what constitutes that allegedly greater "good" and who should be sacrificed in order to achieve it.

There is NO need to enslave those of us who DO acknowledge common sense in the name of protecting those who, for whatever reason, choose to ignore it.

 

[BellyTank]

I still don't see that it's an issue, only the philosophical human rights side of it makes an argument, albeit a pointless one. It CAN be enforced relatively easily, by Cops, so it is. It's obviously of issue to the Govt. and IS enforceable- I don't really see it as a 'Big Brother' issue, maybe just a benevolent, caring big brother.
Idealism over common sense?
Aren't there worse authoritarian things to rebel against?
Maybe it's just individual attitude to authority- people have different limits.
Being forced to carry ID- that's a strong one. It's for 'the greater good'- the greater good as in making it easier for the authorities to control the public.
Sure, it's supposedly for law enforcement reasons but it seems like a big Brother issue to me.
Some people think one thing is OK and another is unacceptable. I used to think compulsory ID carrying was infringing on my human rights but now that I'm older- (maybe not because of it though) it seems like a reasonable idea- I'm not a criminal- have nothing to hide- so if it helps control the criminals, it seems a worthy exercise.
But as far as 'to not wear a seatbelt' being a human right- I can't really see it. What about the 'right' of being able to own and bear arms? I would prefer a 'right' of not being threatened by the fact that many people have guns.

B
T

 

[Dismuke]

I still don't see that it's an issue, only the philosophical human rights side of it makes an argument, albeit a pointless one.

How is the issue and principle of individual rights "pointless"? It is upon the premise of individual rights that our very freedom is based and depends. Without the principle of individual rights, the only "freedom" we have merely becomes a matter of privilege that whatever politicians who happen to be in charge allow us to have. And when individual rights are not regarded as being involate and when the actions of politicians are not restrained by them, the politicians turn into thugs - and all of human history bears me out on this.

It CAN be enforced relatively easily, by Cops, so it is. It's obviously of issue to the Govt. and IS enforceable-

Sure, it is enforceable. All sorts of things are enforceable by government. Just ask survivors of the KGB in the USSR and the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.

Obviously the fact that a law in enforceable does NOT mean that it is right.

I don't really see it as a 'Big Brother' issue, maybe just a benevolent, caring big brother.

Benevolent? And exactly who is to determine what is and is not "benevolent"? And by what right?

The thugs in charge of the USSR considered themselves to be "benevolent" when they sacrificed rivers of blood and sent hundreds of thousands more to rot in Gulags in Siberia in the name of the "good of society" - and they even had a full blown ideology that told them it was benevolent!

Idealism over common sense?

I don't consider the sacrifice of my individual rights - i.e., my ability to live my life as I please so long as I refrain from injuring or defrauding others - in the name of some alleged "greater" good, no matter WHAT that greater good is, to be in any way "idealistic." Nor do I consider it to be "common sense." I do not consider the moral and the practical to be at odds. Sacrificing the individual rights of other people because they choose to live their lives different than how YOU would like them to do - well, I am sorry, but the premise behind it is pure thuggery. It is neither idealistic nor practical.

Aren't there worse authoritarian things to rebel against?

I cannot think of anything more noble and more practical to rebel against than the notion that the rights of individuals are to be sacrificed towards some allegedly "greater good" - no matter what that alleged "good" may consist of. That is the very premise upon which any dictatorship is based.

You may define that "good" as using the police power of the State to compel people to wear seatbelts and helmets and consider that to be harmless. Well, it is true that such laws, in and of themselves, are a far, far cry from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. But that is not the point. What is dangerous and downright deadly is the notion that it is proper to sacrifice individual rights for ANY cause. You may wish to restrict such violations of individual rights to things that you consider "common sense" and "benevolent." But there are plenty of people down throughout history as well as alive in the world today who would not be content to limit themselves to such allegeldy "benevolent" restrictions.

Had a Joseph Stalin or an Adolph Hitler been born in the United States of America they would have been doomed to a life of failure and total frustration because enough people valued their individual rights which would have rendered them politically impotent. But in early 20th century Germany and in Russia, the notion that it was proper for the individual to be sacrificed to the greater good as determined by the State - well, that was the unquestioned premise that most people in those countries took for granted and they eventually got someone who was more than willing to define that "good" and to make such sacrifices.

If enough people buy into the notion that individual rights are superceded by a "greater good," then all sorts of very creepy people start crawling out from under their rocks - just as happened in Germany and Russia. THAT is what is so dangerous about what you are suggesting - no so much the law itself as the premise upon which it rests and is justified. Again, I repeat: it is that same premise that serves as the ideological justification of any dictatorship and must always be fought by those who value individual rights and liberty.

Maybe it's just individual attitude to authority- people have different limits.
Being forced to carry ID- that's a strong one. It's for 'the greater good'- the greater good as in making it easier for the authorities to control the public.

The purpose of a government in a free society is to protect individual rights and to pursue those who use force or fraud to violate other people's rights. Only a dictatorship views the essential purpose of the State's police power as being to "control the public." In a free society, it is the public which controls the government - NOT the other way around.

But as far as 'to not wear a seatbelt' being a human right- I can't really see it.

It IS a matter of individual rights. Your refusal to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet does NOT violate any person's rights whatsoever and is thus NOT a proper matter for government to interfere in. In a free country you would be allowed to do WHATEVER you want to do so long as you do not violate the rights of other people regardless a to whether what you do is or is not in line with "common sense." In a free country YOU are the one who determines what is and is not "common sense" in the context of your life - and if you do not take the responsibility to make that determination seriously, than you, and you alone, must pay for the consequences.

If you do not approve of the fact that someone else refuses to wear a seatbelt or if 90 percent of the public does not approve of the fact that someone else refuses to wear a seatbelt - well, that is nobody else's bloody business and you and "society" do NOT have the right to use the police power of the State to compel him to wear one at the point of a gun. (Now if his insurance company wants to raise his rates or puts a clause in its contracts that it refuses to pay for his medical bills if he is in an accident while not wearing a seat belt - well that is a private, voluntary and totally contractual matter.)

What about the 'right' of being able to own and bear arms? I would prefer a 'right' of not being threatened by the fact that many people have guns.

A person has the right to bear arms for peaceful purposes such as self-defense, target practice, hunting, etc. A person does not have a right to bear arms in the context of using them in a threatening manner - i.e. an armed robber or some guy standing on a street corner pointing a gun at random pedestrians. The principle for determining all such issues is this: does it violate individual rights - i.e. does it subject another person to an act of force or fraud? If the answer is no, then it is a strictly private matter and is not the government's business. If the answer is yes - then the person is a criminal and it is the proper function of government to respond to such behavior.

 

[Michaelson]

Well, in my case, I do find it as a responsibility to others OUTSIDE my vehicle, as if you're sitting loose on the seat inside the vehicle, and the vehicle do something outside it's realm of usual operation, eg. tire blow out, hydroplaning on water, animal or pedestrian step in front the vehicle causing you to swerve, then you are now out of control of the vehicle, as you will be hanging onto the wheel trying to keep upright, while the vehicle is going where ever physics decides it must go. Wearing a seatbelt makes you a part OF the vehicle. If you're not in control, then everyone OUTSIDE the vehicle is in it's path, and it's your responsibility to keep that vehicle under control.

It's sort of like the 'rules' governing home built aircraft. There ARE no rules concerning what you do with yourself in terms of the construction or flight. If you decide to go down in a blaze of glory, so be it. You take someone WITH you, and your estate belongs TO the State. It's your responsiblilty not to take anyone with you. I see it the same way about seatbelts, and just because a law was passed didn't phase me in the least. I wore them anyway for the reasons stated above.

Just another spin on the discussion.

Regards! Michaelson

 

[BellyTank]

Easy big Fella-
I do agree with Michaelson- if your operating a vehicle, you should be able to control it. Dismuke, you're extrapolating my view to somewhere that suits you- taking this way out of proportion- putting words into my mouth- I didn't say the issue and principle of individual rights is pointless- I said what's pointless, is protecting a human right to not wear a seat belt when there is no such human right and you intend to wear one and agree that others should anyway? This whole thing was about the subject of wearing seatbelts.
Now you're telling me that I think the preservation of human rights is pointless?

I think there are cases worthy of putting energy into but not for me on this one. Keep some scale and scope.
If it's the law where you live and you don't like it-
do something about it where you live if you care to.
Such a law is not at all disagreeable to me at all.
I think it is right that it's enforced.

Benevolence? When I'm offering an opinion, I'm the one that says what's right and wrong- otherwise it's not an opinion.
"The purpose of a government in a free society is to protect individual rights"
-that sounds nice but what is a free society? do you live in one?
You can look at this in different ways 'rights' or 'laws'. Was there ever a right to not where a seat belt?- probably not. Making a law that says you must wear a seatbelt- that's a law- there was no human right to take away.
Philosophy or Semantics.
Are Human Rights and Freedom the same thing?

Nazi Germany, the KGB, Stalin...?
Seatbelts wasn't it?

B
T

 

[jamespowers]

But as far as 'to not wear a seatbelt' being a human right- I can't really see it. What about the 'right' of being able to own and bear arms? I would prefer a 'right' of not being threatened by the fact that many people have guns.

Let's see, you want to protect me from myself by forcing me to wear a seatbelt or face a fine but you won't let me protect myself with a gun? Hmmm... Does it depend on who is protecting me or anyone can protect me from myself against my will?
I really wonder about people worrying whether I wear a seatbelt or not. They have time to check me but they do not have time or money to stop terrorists from bombing buildings and thieves from robbing raping and killing. There are much better things to worry about and far more pressing things. I think people proposing such things need a time consuming hobby---and it should be telling me how to live my life! :rage:
I suppose it must be easy for some living outside the USA where you ask about a Bill of Rights and they say: "What's that?" They have no idea what they are missing and why we hold it so dear.
Well, I am off to drive my truck home---without a seatbelt! Take a valium.

Regards to all,

J

P.S. Dismuke, ditto to all of what you said.

 

[Dismuke]

Easy big Fella-
Dismuke, you're extrapolating my view to somewhere that suits you- taking this way out of proportion- putting words into my mouth- I didn't say the issue and principle of individual rights is pointless-

Here is exactly what you said in your own words:

"I still don't see that it's an issue, only the philosophical human rights side of it makes an argument, albeit a pointless one."

Now, with regard to the following:

I said what's pointless, is protecting a human right to not wear a seat belt when there is no such human right and you intend to wear one and agree that others should anyway?

That may have been what you meant to say - but it is not what you actually said.

Since I cannot read minds, I can only respond to what is said. What you said was that the argument from what you call the "philosophical human rights side" was pointless. Now, if you indeed meant to say something other than what you actually wrote, I will certainly take your word on it - I have no basis to do otherwise.

Normally, I wouldn't quibble over such a thing. But in this instance, you have accused me of "extrapolating" your view, taking it "out of proportion" and "putting words" into your mouth. If there was a misunderstanding of what you meant to say, instead of blaming me and challenging my intellectual integrity, you might instead consider the possibility of learning to express your points more clearly.

As to the issue of their being "no such human right" - well, I am afraid it the matter has everything to do with rights. As a human being, you are the sole and sovereign owner of yourself and of your life. Your life is YOURS and you have the inalienable right to live it however you choose regardless of who may disapprove or how many people may disapprove so long as you do not violate the same right of others - i.e. so long as you do not resort to force or fraud. If somebody engages in behavior that you disapprove of, so long as the person is not harming anybody else or forcing other people to participate, then it is none of your business - and neither is it the business of "society" nor of the government.

This whole thing was about the subject of wearing seatbelts.

I am afraid that this is not correct. I am not aware of anybody here who questions the value of wearing seatbelts. I certainly wear seatbelts when I am in a car - nor would I ride in a car if a seatbelt was not available for me.

The subject that this whole thing is about has been stated very clearly by myself and others: does the government have a right to use compulsion against legally sane individuals who are not harming others on grounds that they need to be protected from themselves?

Now you're telling me that I think the preservation of human rights is pointless?

I defy you to find anywhere in my previous posting where I made any such assertion. Please - go back and actually read what was written. I never said such a thing. Now, tell me - exactly who is it that is putting words in other people's mouths? If anyone made such a statement about it being pointless it was you, not me.

I think there are cases worthy of putting energy into but not for me on this one. Keep some scale and scope.

Actually, I went to some length to put the matter in proper scale and scope. I very explicitly stated that, in the grand scheme of governmental abuses of power, seat belt laws, are relatively minor infractions. And I also stated that the primary threat such laws pose to individual liberty is not so much the particular laws themselves as much as the premise upon which such laws are justified - i.e. the premise that it is proper to regard individual rights as being subordinate to some allegedly "greater good."

If that does not constitute bringing "scale and scope" to my arguments, then I don't know what does.

If it's the law where you live and you don't like it-
do something about it where you live if you care to.

I am afraid that this is just so much mud in the water. What the law happens to be in my area and whether I can do anything about it is utterly irrelevant to the central issue of what we are taking about: whether or not it proper for the government to impose such laws in the first place. What the law happens to be in my area has absolutely no bearing on whether or not such laws are proper.

Such a law is not at all disagreeable to me at all.
I think it is right that it's enforced.

You have indeed made it quite clear that such is your viewpoint. And I profoundly reject and challenge the validity of the premises upon which your viewpoint rests - premises which you very explicitly endorsed in your postings.

Benevolence? When I'm offering an opinion, I'm the one that says what's right and wrong- otherwise it's not an opinion.

Opinions, in and of themselves, are pretty meaningless. I really couldn't care less what your (or anyone else's) opinions are one way or another. What I do find interesting and consider to be of much more importance than one's opinions is the reasons that a person uses to back up his opinions. And, in this thread, it is those reasons that you have given that I take profound exception to.

"The purpose of a government in a free society is to protect individual rights"
-that sounds nice but what is a free society? do you live in one?

The United States and all of the countries in the West are what I would call semi-free to varying degrees. By that I mean that there exists a substantial degree of regard for and protection of individual rights - but that, unfortunately, it is significantly undermined by authoritarian laws and regulations which trample on individual rights in the name of various forms of what is alleged to be "the greater good." But again, whether or not I happen to live in a free society is utterly irrelevant to the issue as to whether a fully free society is moral and proper. The only thing that living in a semi-free rather than a fully free society brings to the table in the matter is that public policy and legislation needs to be made with the aim of moving us closer towards being a free society - not moving us further away from it as various "nanny state" laws designed to protect people from themselves are doing.

You can look at this in different ways 'rights' or 'laws'. Was there ever a right to not where a seat belt?- probably not.

I have already addressed this. Your life is yours and you have a right to live it as you please so long as you don't violate the rights of others. Since a person's refusal to wear a seatbelt - regardless as to whether it is wise or unwise - does not violate the rights of another person, than that person has a right to engage in such behavior by virtue of the fact that it is his life, his body, his car and his choice to make.

Making a law that says you must wear a seatbelt- that's a law- there was no human right to take away.

Rights are inalienable - they cannot be taken away. They can only be violated - which is exactly what using the police power of the State to compel a person to wear a seatbelt does.

Are Human Rights and Freedom the same thing?

"Human rights" is a very fuzzy term in modern usage. I think it is much more accurate and clear to use the term "individual rights." Are rights and freedom the same thing? They are very closely related. It is impossible to have political freedom in a society where individual rights are not recognized. Individual rights (what Jefferson described as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") are inalienable. If you live in a society where those rights are respected and protected, then you live in a society where there is freedom. To the degree that a society's government disregards and violates individual rights, that society is no longer free.

Nazi Germany, the KGB, Stalin...?
Seatbelts wasn't it?

Yes. Nazi Germany. Stalin.

What do seatbelts have to do with Nazi Germany and Stalin? Not much. But the basic premise that is put forth to justify violating individual rights to protect the irresponsible from the potential consequences of not wearing seatbelts - i.e., that it is justified on grounds that it promotes the "greater good" - is the exact same premise that is used to justify all of the atrocities that those regimes and many, many others have committed down through history.

By basing your political views on the need to "promote the greater good" you are opening the door to the worst sort of monsters. Maybe you think seatbelt laws are not a big deal and are justified. Ok. But what happens when, down the line, someone comes along and proposes on grounds that it promotes the "greater good" something that IS a big deal and that you DON'T think is justified? On what basis are you going to challenge such a proposal? You certainly won't be able to resort with any ounce of consistency and credibility to the argument of individual rights because you would have thrown that line of reasoning out the window a long time ago when it came to the seatbelt issue.

Keep in mind that what does and does not constitute the "greater good" is largely a matter of opinion - and opinions are NOT something that we need the State to go around enforcing at the point of a gun.

 

[Dismuke]

Well, in my case, I do find it as a responsibility to others OUTSIDE my vehicle, as if you're sitting loose on the seat inside the vehicle, and the vehicle do something outside it's realm of usual operation, eg. tire blow out, hydroplaning on water, animal or pedestrian step in front the vehicle causing you to swerve, then you are now out of control of the vehicle, as you will be hanging onto the wheel trying to keep upright, while the vehicle is going where ever physics decides it must go. Wearing a seatbelt makes you a part OF the vehicle. If you're not in control, then everyone OUTSIDE the vehicle is in it's path, and it's your responsibility to keep that vehicle under control.

I don't think you have successfully made a case for forcing people to wear seatbelts. But at least the premise that you are basing your case on - the protection of individual rights and property - is a valid one. As such, civilized people who treasure and respect individual rights would have no problem sitting down and giving consideration to whatever arguments you might have to back up your position. By way of contrast, when someone proposes legislation on grounds that people need to be protected from themselves - well, a person who values individual rights is going to dismiss the whole notion out of hand as a matter of principle.

Now, what you say about wearing seatbelts putting one in a better position to regain control of an out of control car makes sense to me. But does a person's refusal to wear a seatbelt put the safety of other people at such a high level of risk that such a person should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal?

I can think of another instance where a certain type of behavior DOES rise to that level - driving while drunk. I think it is entirely proper that it is illegal to drive drunk as this clearly violates the rights of other people by subjecting them to a very dangerous situation.

Now, if you want to make a similar case with regard to seatbelts and the ability to control one's cars - I am certainly willing to listen to whatever you have to say on the matter. On the other hand, I can think of other forms of behavior that are of MUCH greater potential risk to public safety than not wearing seatbelts - and these are situations that can potentially CAUSE a person to lose control over his car as opposed to merely having a harder time regaining control. For example - smoking a cigarette, eating lunch, drinking a cup of water, changing radio stations etc. Obviously one has a lower level of potential control over one's car when one hand is preoccupied with a task other than driving. People can also be distracted by conversations with passengers, conversations over a cell phone - even if the person is using a "hands free" device. People can be distracted by passing scenery and landmarks. I would say that all of these things are of much greater potential risk to other drivers and pedestrians than is a driver who happens not to be wearing a seatbelt.

So again, if you wish to make a case for seatbelt laws on the basis of protecting the rights and property of people other than the driver - more power to you. But before you start proposing legislation in that area, you might want to first start outlawing car radios, drive through windows, conversations with passengers and require very tall walls along both sides of roads that pass by interesting scenery or landmarks.

 

[Wild Root]

Well gentle men, I’m going to just say that if you live in California and drive a car that didn’t originally come equipped with seat belts, then it’s ok if you don’t ad them to your car. The law here is that you must wear your belts, if you have such things. Most people that own vintage cars from the 20’s to the 50’s don’t have belts because they are mostly weekend cars then to that being something they drive every day.

I have talked to lots of vintage car guys about lap belts. A lap belt in a 60 to 70 year old car isn’t going to save a life! Yes, you’ll not fly around in your car, but you’ll still hit that wheel and that ever so hard chrome and wood grained dash! You can still get killed wile being strapped in. Yes, not being strapped is a stupid idea too but there have been lots of people who have lived and walked away from wrecks in cars that had no belts. Same goes for those who have never even had a wreck in their lives! Like my grand folks! They drove cars like mine for most of their lives and they are still around to tell about it!

Car wrecks have happened and will continue to happen! No amount of safety features will save your life in any given crash. Some safety features have been known to kill like the air bag for instance. Air bags have killed children and babies!

It’s not fare to insult any one here to imply that we don’t understand the scientific reaction of what happens when flesh comes into contact with steel and glass at a high speed. We all know the out come of a bad auto accident.

My folks didn’t really like the fact that I was buying a car that was 60 years old and had no seat belts. Then, my brother bought a motor bike and that took care of that.

Driving a vintage car is safer then riding a motor bike every day. But, you know what, life is dangerous no matter what! Today’s cars can kill just as much as an older car. Cars are just tools in which we use to get from place to place. No one really wants to get in a crash, it just happens.

I drive safely and yes, don’t mean that I’m always going to be safe on the road because there are idiots out there that drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

I have chosen a life of vintage living. Driving a vintage car every day and wearing vintage clothes. You can call me the most stupidest person in the world for choosing to do so, but I couldn’t really care less if you ask me.

I’m doing what I want to do! That’s why America is so great. Even if we have some lousy laws, it’s still got a lot going for it.

Good night every one, and drive safely!

Root.

 

[BellyTank]

James-

-the right to own and bear is an old one for reasons back then. People want to keep it- need it because now they need to protect themselves from each other, that includes criminals and angry people- also of course because people don't like having anything taken away. Gun problem.
As I said, seatbelts are easily enforced, so they are- at least the way they do it is easy because the cops are already on the road stopping cars.
Stopping terror is a litle harder.
So what 'freedoms' or 'rights' do you have that Europe doesn't?
Ones that have any kind of worldly meaning.

And please don't think I'm sitting here angry- I'm just asking and answering.

B
T

 

[BellyTank]

Dismuke-

-you're still twisting things.
The philosophical argument surrounding the right to 'not' wear a seatbelt seems pointless to me if you won't exercise it and don't expect others to.
Don't take things out of context.
I think you're on the right track- I don't actually disagree with you that much- just on the point of the non-existent seatbelt right. Not human rights in general.
This world is not ideal- there are always exceptions to rules, even if the rules are rights. Some rights protect- some encroach on the rights of others .

B
T

 

[Dismuke]

-
The philosophical argument surrounding the right to 'not' wear a seatbelt seems pointless to me if you won't exercise it and don't expect others to.

There are all sorts of behaviors that I don't personally approve of that I will vigorously defend other people's right to engage in if they so choose.

For instance, I think tattoos are bizarre and grotesque. I would never do that to myself. But I would be outraged if the government were to make it illegal for me or anyone else to get a tattoo - despite the fact that I have absolutely no intention of ever exercising my right to get a tattoo.

I think rock music is even more disgusting than tattoos and seek to avoid having to listen to it as much as is possible in today's culture. But I would fight very hard to oppose any effort to outlaw such music.

I do not approve of patronizing prostitutes or the use of recreational drugs. But I do not support the laws that exist outlawing such behavior and advocate immediate decriminalization despite the fact that I have no intention of ever hiring a hooker or smoking a joint.

I regard an attack on someone else's freedom as an attack on my own - which is exactly what it is. Giving power to the State to trample on someone else's freedom is ultimately giving that exact same power to the State to eventually trample on my own freedom. So sometimes it is quite necessary to come to the defense of people that one does not especially like or approve of.

Some rights protect- some encroach on the rights of others .

No - a person's rights cannot encroach on the rights of others. The only way to violate another person's rights is by using some form of force or fraud against that person - and nobody has the right to initiate the use of force or engage in fraud.

Now it is true that disputes can arise between people as to what their rights are within a given context. For example, neighboring property owners who have incompatible ideas on how to use their land or a dispute between a buyer and a seller. That is why things such as contracts, deed restrictions and such exist so that the rights of all parties can be agreed upon and decided ahead of time. When such clear prior agreement either does not happen or is impossible, that is what the courts are for. But the existence of such disputes does not mean that one person's rights "encroach" on another's.

 

[BellyTank]

I still agree with you- but I've got the same old view-
some expressions of authority serve only to protect, not to take away-
and I think that's OK, acceptable- not ideal but a solution to an observed problem.
Enforcing seatbelt wearing is serving to protect those who don't see the use.
Your point of view is spot on but I'll also defend my point that there are valid and useful reasons for enforcement- it's my opinion, I'm not making the law but now that it's there, it makes sense to me- hopefully it is saving lives.
Your cause is indeed very noble and idealistic but unfortunately,
this world is not ideal.
There will always be exceptions to the rule and I defend this specific case just as you are defending the global cause of 'rights'. I am not speaking about the greater issues, just this one.
Opinion is opinion- what you believe to be right is your belief- my opinion is mine from my standpoint and the context the way I see it- not wrong.
Fundament is fundament- reason lies in moderation of fundament.
I don't see any point in arguing with you- I don't want to argue-
you won't change my opinion.
I hope we can find some more common ground.
Have a great day-

B
T

 

[scotrace]

Boy, Leave This One For TEN Minutes...

So... how about them Indians this year eh? I think they'll choke as usual, but you never know...

*cough*

 

[jamespowers]

So what 'freedoms' or 'rights' do you have that Europe doesn't?
Ones that have any kind of worldly meaning.

The most fundamental right of all actually---the right to own firearms for protection and sport. Can you go down to the local sporting goods shop and obtain a Colt Government model for instance?
The second amendment exists for the protection of the others.
You really do not need to worry about me. I really can take care of myself and I already have a mother.

Regards to all,

J

 

[BellyTank]

I wasn't worried about you JP, you're a big boy.
Don't need a 1911-A1.

Say Hi to your Mom, mine died.

Have a nice night-

B
T

 

[jamespowers]

I wasn't worried about you JP, you're a big boy.
Don't need a 1911-A1.

I will take the 1911-A1 comment as a no.
Obviously you haven't gone into certain parts of Los Angeles area(Compton, Watts) or Oakland at night around here. I wouldn't recommend going in without one. Closer to you, I wouldn't recommend going into Harlem at night without one either. Unless of course you have no need for that money in your pocket or anything else that may be on your person. Now that truly is risking your life far more than driving without seatbelts.
I am sorry about your mother. I know what it is to lose a parent. My father passed away 12 years ago.

Regards to all,

J

 

[BellyTank]

James-
I don't live in the 'States - I don't need a gun.
Over here in Europe, owning a gun is probably the furthest thing form most peoples' minds- there's really nothing we need to protect ourselves from. The perception and the situation is very different on both sides of the sea.
If I really want to do sporting shooting, I can join a club and pretty much buy what I want, I hold a firearms license. I used to shoot competitively and recreationally in NZ- I love guns but over here things are more controlled, which I definitely approve of. We know if 'we're' responsible but there's no accounting for the rest of society- so there is control and that's OK by me.
It's funny- over here in Denmark you almost never see Cops on the beat and it's because there's not enough need to justify them being there. It's even different from NZ. It must be hard for us to perceive each others' lifestyles sometimes...

Have a great Saturday-

B
T

 

[BellyTank]

Same in NZ but they do in Australia.
They carry in DK and most of Europe.

B
T