Subject:
|
Re: Liberty vs. Socialism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:05:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
320 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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).
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 here at an outrageous price! Thus more profits for the
shareholders! But that's another topic ;)
> > 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).
All worked out :)
>
> > 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.
Or we could start changing our attitudes towards the car and end our 'love
affair' we've been having with autos for these generations--why is it that North
AMericans have this particular fetish for personal vehicles (myself included--I
love my '88 Dodge :) )? On teh highway every day there's all these cars with 1
occupant in each one! Is there a way to get North Americans to buy into public
transit?
> > 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?
See, the problem is I wear my seat belt. I don't put hte truck in gear until
the seat belt's on, even when I'm up in 'Boonyville' amongst the farmers fields.
Seatbelts save lives. Does it have to be legislated? Do halloween costume
companies really have to put on their outfits, "Wearing cape does not allow user
to fly". Does "slip 'n slide" really ned to put on their product, "Do not use
if you're older than 12 and are in a drunken stupor"?
Stop the legislation and also stop the lawsuits. If you feel like crashing thru
your windshield at 80 km/h and skidding down the 4 lanes of the 401, hey, all
the power to you. Just don't sue (if you make it) the aouto maufacturer, or the
road construction crew, or the gov't. I've known since I was 8 that wearing a
seat belt is safer than not. Don't act all surprised and sue someone 'cause you
didn't wnat to wear it.
>
> 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.
True. But if we're a free society, then people have to be free to make the
wrong decisions, instead of making them make the 'safe' decisions. Comes with
the territory of 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility'.
>
> > 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.
Licenses give the user the right to drive on public roads--they passed the 'very
difficult' drivers examination so they have the basic aptitude to operate a
vehicle on a road. That license really does not mean that the person is more
intelligent. And that license will not prevent accidents or injury. Public
roads or whatever--I still say it's up to the individual whether they wear a
belt or not. The gov't should get out of the business of legislating stupidity
out of existence 'cause it'll never happen and just cost us more money in the
attempt.
For example--the 'clickit or ticket'--you're taking officers of he police force
off of crime investigations and other job related duties to stop drivers to see
if they're wearing a seatbelt or not. Checking for something that, in the end,
will only affect the person who is, or is not, wearing a seatbelt. I'd rather
the cops be checking out things that my fellow citizen may be doing that may
negatively affect me, such as, say, doing 180 in a hundred zone (just to keep it
on the streets).
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
If the parent wants to protect the child, then that's what the parent should do.
Having the gov't mandate the protection, takes the onus away from the parent.
Parents can now be 'dumber' about protecting their kids 'cause 'big brother'
made laws.
> 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!!!).
THis is very true. Thankfully my good friend was wearinga helmet 'cause she
went right over the hood of the car that cut in front of her and she landed on
her head. Still didn't stop her from breaking her collar bone. But she lived
and her head was intact.
Her helmet was damaged as well. That was promptly thrown out and she got
another one.
>
> -->Bruce<--
>
> (Read The eFfing Manual, for those who don't know what RTFM means)
Dave K
-what's a manual? Can I buy one for my life?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
