Subject:
|
Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:47:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner <fredrigl@math.uio.no> wrote:
>
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> writes:
>
> > I've never liked seat belt laws. It is fundamentally, a persona
> > choice whether to buckle up or not.
>
>
> In some parts of the world, the compensation for people severly injured
> in car accidents, are paid by the social security or the insurance
> industry, or a combination. In these cases, it is hardly fair to the
> community that they have to pay for the extra compensation, in cases
> where a person has suffered severe injuries due to the failure to use
> seat belts.
Then ban cigarettes. Ban foods that are bad for you. Ban autos until they
don't put toxics in the air. Shut down Stelco and Dofasco. To single out
seatbelts because of what we have to pay in health care is hypocritical. And if
i hurt/kill myself because I didn't want to wear a seatbelt is my business,
whether we all pay into the health care system. Whether companies hurt/slowly
kill me is another matter. You pays your dime and ya takes your chances. I pay
into Canada's health care system and yet I'm not bellyaching about the smokers
and others that are using said system more than myself. As long as the system's
there when I need it.
>
> In parts of the world where there are no social benefits whatsoever for
> people injured in the traffic, I see your point. Still, a person
> injured would not contribute as much to the society, due to lack of
> working capacity, etc. Hence, the society benefits from the useage of
> seat belts.
Sure society benefits from seat belts. Society would also be better if most of
these obese teens got out from behind a video game console and jogged around the
block a couple times during the week. But we don't force one, why the other?
>
> > A few years back Toronto tried to pass a bike helmet law, making it
> > mandatory for all bike riders to wear helmets. There was such an
> > outcry that hte law was changed such that only people under the age
> > of 18 were required to wear helmets.
>
>
> Now, that's something different. Only a small part of bicycle accidents
> with personal injury involve injury to the head. Besides, the helmet
> offers very small protection anyway, and it is prone to wrong useage. A
> badly adjusted or old helmet offers little or no protection at all.
>
>
> Fredrik
All too true. We could go further and say why enact a law at all, even for the
kids--isn't it hte parent's responsibility to keep their kids safe? Why does
the gov't have to become the 'parents' of hte community?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
| (...) In some parts of the world, committing suicide, or trying to, is illegal. What do you think about that? I think there is a large difference between a sudden event, like a car accident, and a long term bad habit, like smoking or poor diet. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
| (...) Charge the cigarette companies to pay for the medical (who in turn charge the smokers, who thus pay for themselves). (...) All foods are bad for you, given enough research. Really, you have to ban overeating (but then again, the food is taxed, (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
| (...) In some parts of the world, the compensation for people severly injured in car accidents, are paid by the social security or the insurance industry, or a combination. In these cases, it is hardly fair to the community that they have to pay for (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
