Subject:
|
Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:19:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> 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.
Charge the cigarette companies to pay for the medical (who in turn charge the
smokers, who thus pay for themselves).
> Ban foods that are bad for you.
All foods are bad for you, given enough research. Really, you have to ban
overeating (but then again, the food is taxed, so he who buys more food pays
more taxes to pay for his hospitalization).
> Ban autos until they
> don't put toxics in the air.
Be honest then! Just say ban autos (and the internal combustion process)
forever - since the resulting breakdown of society and business will be
catastrophic, it will probably be evaluated by society and rejected, though you
may get more stringent restrictions on the autos.
> 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.
Fine, don't wear your seatbelt. I don't care...oh, and you do realize that you
can't use a public road while not wearing one? You want to change that? Just
sign off on this form foreswearing any and all public assitance if you should be
injured while not wearing one.
No problem, see?
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.
Ahhhh, there's the rub! It may not be if its resources are stretched too tight
by smokers and seat-belt scoffers.
> 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?
Public roads and required licenses, that's why.
>
> >
> > > 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?
You are making a mistaken analogy: the government is not assuming the
responsibilities of the parents, it is forcing the parents to accept the
responsibilties and holding them accountable. If you wish to question that the
government should be doing that, by all means go ahead, but I regard it as a
different issue than the one you stated.
At Mammoth (in the eastern Sierra mountains, for those not familiar with
California - which I encourage people to visit for those tired of the packed
conditions in Yosemite) at one particularly steep hill, my wife and I paused and
debated whether we should let our son go down the hill. While we were debating,
our fearless progeny made the decision for us. And sure enough, crashed at the
bottom of the hill. A couple of bruises...and a cracked helmet, where he hit
the side of his head on the ground. I held it up and shouted, "Yes! It did
it's job!" It was immediately replaced (as per manufacturers instructions - we
bought one, but the manufacturer also sent a free replacement). All I can say
is, law or no law, parents that allow their child to skate/bicycle without a
helmet are morons (and RTFM and adjust the helmet properly!!!).
-->Bruce<--
(Read The eFfing Manual, for those who don't know what RTFM means)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
| (...) Agreed! Though if you tax the corporations excessively, they'll whine and complain and take their business to China where the labour is cheap and the environmental protection is negligible! Ad to add insult to injury, sell the products back (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
