Clickit! Or Stick it?
- Thread starter priv8ter
- Start date
- Status
QKRTHNU
Member
Since we're already required by law to have insurance I think the seatbelt law is unnecessary.
Let the insurance companies decide if they want to put a clause in the policy that says whether or not you'll be covered if no wearing a safety restraint.
Let the insurance companies decide if they want to put a clause in the policy that says whether or not you'll be covered if no wearing a safety restraint.
That might be where things go because most insurance policies already put the burden on you to mitigate your damages. For example, if you're insured against water damage to your house but you strip the roof to replace it and it rains, you won't be covered.
However, the blissninny "social obligation" laws put the financial burden on taxpayers if you don't have insurance and are injured, and they apply no matter how you become injured.
The difference is that driving is not a right -- it's a regulated privilege.
In fact, in some venues, if you're a front seat passenger above a certain age, you're subject to being ticketed if you don't wear a seat belt.
The 4A doesn't have anything to do with seatbelts because of a few considerations:
1. Compliance can be determined visually from a distance because the degree of tint is restricted by other laws. Therefore the "search" is not unreasonable.
2. A vehicle itself is not a person or house, and even though it may contain "effects" subject to the 4A, adjudicated "reasonable" laws require certain parts of the interior to be visible from the outside while the vehicle is being operated.
3. The state has an adjudicated right to ascertain at any time that a vehicle is being operated in compliance with the laws pertaining to operation of a vehicle on public roadways.
A citizen is free to ignore all of the obligations of exercising the privilege or driving by simply forsaking driving.
Mike Irwin
Member
A request for those of you who don't wear your seat belts...
Will you put me in your will as recipient of your guns?
Thank you...
Will you put me in your will as recipient of your guns?
Thank you...
But who determines what is a privilege and what is a right? The 9th and 10th give discresion on this to the states and people.
Factually, I agree with that it is a privilege and that automobiles are legally excluded from 4th amendment protections.
Fundamentally, I do not.
Why not allow police to look in the windows of your house to determine if the contents are in violation of some law?
Why not issue permits to walk down the sidewalk? Is there a difference in restricting fundamental mobility?
I think the mistake you are making with your arguments is that you are letting someone else define the premises for which you argue. In this case, you accept the government position. It is possible to construct a valid argument from a false premise.
I know that there is legal precedent for everything that you mentioned. Does that mean it is right?
Would you accept that a SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd meant a collective right to bear arms? I wouldn't.
Think about some of the flawed rulings of SCOTUS from the past, like the Dred Scott ruling. Or did you want to argue that the 13th amendment obviated that decision?
Factually, I agree with that it is a privilege and that automobiles are legally excluded from 4th amendment protections.
Fundamentally, I do not.
Why not allow police to look in the windows of your house to determine if the contents are in violation of some law?
Why not issue permits to walk down the sidewalk? Is there a difference in restricting fundamental mobility?
I think the mistake you are making with your arguments is that you are letting someone else define the premises for which you argue. In this case, you accept the government position. It is possible to construct a valid argument from a false premise.
I know that there is legal precedent for everything that you mentioned. Does that mean it is right?
Would you accept that a SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd meant a collective right to bear arms? I wouldn't.
Think about some of the flawed rulings of SCOTUS from the past, like the Dred Scott ruling. Or did you want to argue that the 13th amendment obviated that decision?
Actually, you can't construct a valid argument from a false premise.
There are arguments from hypothetical premises, and there are arguments from established facts. If you want to argue hypotheticals, you'll get tangled up in endless bickering because hypotheticals can never be the premises for sound argument.
The 2A is unarguably a right by the power of the Constitution which expressly states it and its internal declaration that it is the Supreme Law of the nation. If you accept the Constitution, you have to accept the 2A as a right.
Likewise with the laws concerning motor vehicles by application of the very 10th Amendment you cite. By the power of the Constitution, the laws the people and their states have passed concerning cars have been established.
SCOTUS decisions do not trump the Constitution. The Supremes can say it says this or that, but their decisions don't change what it actually says. As in Dred-Scott, another SCOTUS can come along and say "we (meaning the SCOTUS) were wrong in that decision." Every decision the SCOTUS makes is considered anew in light of the Constitution, and it is the only court that is not bound by stare decisis, even its own decisions.
You and I can make up rules for a perfect world and argue from them, but that's a waste of time.
Intune
Member
Save Lives!
If the purpose behind mandatory seatbelt laws is to save lives I propose that all vehicle occupants MUST wear helmets. I am forced to wear one here in TN because it is "safer." However, no one has ever been able to argue the fact that many more CAR drivers die of head injuries than bike riders and thus many more lives would be saved if ya'll had to strap on a Bell when you climbed in your cages. Sound fun? BTW, I do wear mine, just don't like being told that I HAVE to. Some people are in their "comfort zone" when being told where to go and what to do. I'm not.
If the purpose behind mandatory seatbelt laws is to save lives I propose that all vehicle occupants MUST wear helmets. I am forced to wear one here in TN because it is "safer." However, no one has ever been able to argue the fact that many more CAR drivers die of head injuries than bike riders and thus many more lives would be saved if ya'll had to strap on a Bell when you climbed in your cages. Sound fun? BTW, I do wear mine, just don't like being told that I HAVE to. Some people are in their "comfort zone" when being told where to go and what to do. I'm not.
Closet Liberals--
The argument that infringments such as seat belts are appropriate and firearms are not are the arguments of closet liberal that love and want to keep their guns but really want a socialist state where everyone is everyones watcher and is responsible for "the greater good"--
Since we are moving towards a socialist state with this thinking--
let's make sure we don't have excess expense for you guys--
We need
First and foremost -- Seatbelt police--then
Diet Police
Cigarette Police
Exercise Police
Horserpower Police
"reasonable" behavior Police
Save me from myself Police
Sex Police--(AIDs ya'know)
ETC ETC
and of course-- increase the ATF's authority to protect you from yourselves
The argument that infringments such as seat belts are appropriate and firearms are not are the arguments of closet liberal that love and want to keep their guns but really want a socialist state where everyone is everyones watcher and is responsible for "the greater good"--
Since we are moving towards a socialist state with this thinking--
let's make sure we don't have excess expense for you guys--
We need
First and foremost -- Seatbelt police--then
Diet Police
Cigarette Police
Exercise Police
Horserpower Police
"reasonable" behavior Police
Save me from myself Police
Sex Police--(AIDs ya'know)
ETC ETC
and of course-- increase the ATF's authority to protect you from yourselves
When "Federal Aid to Education" was first being floated in the '50s, a bunch of teachers were adamantly against it on the "camel's nose under the tent" theory that it would end up with the feds screwing up public education. They were right.
Just like accepting favors from the Mafia, accepting "federal" taxpayer money for anything ends up with erosion of rights. States do it, cities do it, and companies do it. Disgusting, ain't it?
Meanwhile, wear your seatbelt....
Just like accepting favors from the Mafia, accepting "federal" taxpayer money for anything ends up with erosion of rights. States do it, cities do it, and companies do it. Disgusting, ain't it?
Meanwhile, wear your seatbelt....
I beg to differ. You can use sound reasoning (draw a correct inference) to construct a valid (logically structured) argument from a false premise. Your conclusion will be false, though.
I concur with what you said about hypotheticals.
As to the 10th RE: restrictions on mobility, I don't quite remember the people getting much of a say, but I guess that is why we have representatives, such as they are. this isn't the only legislative hijacking we deal with, by far. Still, I'll concede that this is legal, if not right.
I'm not quite as willing to concede the restrictions placed on motor vehicles are anything more than semantics.
What about RVs and Trailer homes? Vehicle or domicile?
What about police making spot checks on homes to look in windows for illegal materials and activities?
I'm not sure I buy into that point fully. It sounds like as much a pretext for harassment and restriction of freedom of movement as anything. I think that "driving while black" is sufficient example of what I mean.
But then there are those of us who define a valid argument as one which draws a true conclusion....
RV on the road? Vehicle subject to the vision thing. Appropriately parked? Domicile. Trailer being towed? Subject to the trailer laws. Appropriately parked? Domicile.
4A applies. No warrant? No peeking beyond what a normal passerby would see walking by. Keep your inside lights darker than the outside light or keep your shades drawn.
Adjudicated simply means that somebody's challenged the law in court, and it was found Constitutional or otherwise valid.
And like you said, "the people" act through their chosen representatives or governments. We ain't a democracy, you know!
There are plenty of valid, yet false arguments.
Think of those scientists who opposed building the A-bomb because it might have damaged the atmosphere. Valid to consider whether or not we'd turn it into plasma. Testing proved otherwise.
I guess we'll just differ on semantics.
Enforced unreasonably, unevenly and unfairly
The other problem with seat belt laws--
SCHOOL BUSES--
Supposedly "our most precious cargo" but in the VAST majority of jurisdiction not even installed for optional use--
I still only object to the seatbelt law as an intrusion on my personal freedoms--
But it is not enforced or even written reasonably--
The other problem with seat belt laws--
SCHOOL BUSES--
Supposedly "our most precious cargo" but in the VAST majority of jurisdiction not even installed for optional use--
I still only object to the seatbelt law as an intrusion on my personal freedoms--
But it is not enforced or even written reasonably--
Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.
The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:
* Premise: All fish live in the ocean
* Premise: Sea otters are fish
* Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean
There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.
We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Truth Table for Implication
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
* If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
* If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
* If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)
So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises.
If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from true premises, then it is called a sound argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.
from infidels.org
The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:
* Premise: All fish live in the ocean
* Premise: Sea otters are fish
* Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean
There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.
We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Truth Table for Implication
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
* If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
* If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
* If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)
So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises.
If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from true premises, then it is called a sound argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.
from infidels.org
Monkeyleg
Member.
Mike Irwin: "they sign agreements stating that they are absolutely and completely responsible for their own injuries in an accident, and if injured critically, will be responsible for the entire bill no matter what, and agree that if their insurance runs out they will NOT be elegible for funds from Medicare or Medicaid or any other governmental agency."
You've disappointed me.
Will you sign such a release when you use reloads? After all, the gun manufacturers' instruction manuals usually include a caution against their use.
In other posts, you've made reference to being overweight. Will you sign such an agreement every time you eat?
You've also commented about your favorite alcoholic beverages, consumption of which has all sorts of health risks. Written agreement before popping the cork?
Please know I'm not trying to attack you personally; you're one of the people I respect highly on THR. That's why your post blind-sided me.
You've disappointed me.
Will you sign such a release when you use reloads? After all, the gun manufacturers' instruction manuals usually include a caution against their use.
In other posts, you've made reference to being overweight. Will you sign such an agreement every time you eat?
You've also commented about your favorite alcoholic beverages, consumption of which has all sorts of health risks. Written agreement before popping the cork?
Please know I'm not trying to attack you personally; you're one of the people I respect highly on THR. That's why your post blind-sided me.
priv8ter
Member
Great discusion
Wow. When I first posted this, I probably should have added that I always wear my seat belt. Not because the government tells me too, but because I really want to see more of my wife and daughter. And I always make sure my wife has her seat belt on before I drive away.
That is the only reason I should need for wearing it.
The fact is this initiative would still require you to wear a seat belt...police just couldn't pull you over for NOT wearing it. And, all children under 16 years old would be required to be seat belted in.
Despite the 22,000+ tickets issued under the new law, there have been an estimated 40,000 people pulled who were wearing seat belts, but it didn't look like they were.
Wow. When I first posted this, I probably should have added that I always wear my seat belt. Not because the government tells me too, but because I really want to see more of my wife and daughter. And I always make sure my wife has her seat belt on before I drive away.
That is the only reason I should need for wearing it.
The fact is this initiative would still require you to wear a seat belt...police just couldn't pull you over for NOT wearing it. And, all children under 16 years old would be required to be seat belted in.
Despite the 22,000+ tickets issued under the new law, there have been an estimated 40,000 people pulled who were wearing seat belts, but it didn't look like they were.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Priv8tor, things have changed, at least here in Wisconsin.
Many decades ago, seat belts were for race car drivers.
Then manufacturers--especially those who produced sports cars and wanted to garner the wannebe race drivers--offered seat belts as an option. That was fine.
Then some Living Kennedy decided to mandate that car manufacturers have seat belts as standard equipment.
Decades passed, Mary Jo drowned, and the issue was silent.
Then some liberal with an agenda (what does Ted Nugent say about such folks?) decided to tie federal highway funds to seat belt laws. Use 'em, or lose your own tax dollars.
For awhile, the LEO community said they wouldn't stop a driver solely because he wasn't buckled up.
Then the Floating Kennedy's decided to ratchet things up a notch by witholding your own tax dollars from you unless the local PD stopped and fined you for not buckling up.
Pardon me, but I don't recall having agreed to taking my tax dollars and have them used as extortion against me. I'll buckle up when I feel like it. But I sure never agreed to pay, with my federal tax dollars, the local PD to pull me over and tax me once again.
Different issue, same incrementalism.
Many decades ago, seat belts were for race car drivers.
Then manufacturers--especially those who produced sports cars and wanted to garner the wannebe race drivers--offered seat belts as an option. That was fine.
Then some Living Kennedy decided to mandate that car manufacturers have seat belts as standard equipment.
Decades passed, Mary Jo drowned, and the issue was silent.
Then some liberal with an agenda (what does Ted Nugent say about such folks?) decided to tie federal highway funds to seat belt laws. Use 'em, or lose your own tax dollars.
For awhile, the LEO community said they wouldn't stop a driver solely because he wasn't buckled up.
Then the Floating Kennedy's decided to ratchet things up a notch by witholding your own tax dollars from you unless the local PD stopped and fined you for not buckling up.
Pardon me, but I don't recall having agreed to taking my tax dollars and have them used as extortion against me. I'll buckle up when I feel like it. But I sure never agreed to pay, with my federal tax dollars, the local PD to pull me over and tax me once again.
Different issue, same incrementalism.
Absolutely Monkeyleg
We all do a lot of things that aren't "GOOD" for us--
We eat unhealthy food
We eat too much
We drink alcohol
We don't exercise enough
We smoke
We handle gunpower and primers-- and lead bullets
We have firearms in our homes
But we live in America--
And it's supposed to be free--
It's our right to do things that we want -- even if it's not the best for "Society at large" and even if The Dems don't like it--
Again I am amazed at the tone of this thread on an otherwise freedom loving site?????????
:banghead:
We all do a lot of things that aren't "GOOD" for us--
We eat unhealthy food
We eat too much
We drink alcohol
We don't exercise enough
We smoke
We handle gunpower and primers-- and lead bullets
We have firearms in our homes
But we live in America--
And it's supposed to be free--
It's our right to do things that we want -- even if it's not the best for "Society at large" and even if The Dems don't like it--
Again I am amazed at the tone of this thread on an otherwise freedom loving site?????????
:banghead:
anchored
Member
OT
Just to help the thread drift along, here's one of my bookmarks:
The Logical Fallacies Index
Would you require your child to wear a seatbelt?
Just to help the thread drift along, here's one of my bookmarks:
The Logical Fallacies Index
Would you require your child to wear a seatbelt?
Mike Irwin
Member
You know, it's funny, Monkey.
The people who are most likely to flout safety measures such as seat belts and helmets are statistically those who are most likely to have either inadequate or no insurance to cover them in case of a catastrophic accident fueled by their own stupidity.
It's even funnier that many people who scream the loudest about individual choice and freedom are apparently those who are willing to throw that straight out the window and jump onto the back of society at large if their own stupidity renders them unable to care for themselves.
I never knew that taking responsibility for one's own actions was the same as abrogating responsibility and letting society at large clean up the mess...
I have absolutely no expectation of ever doing that. I carry insurance far in excess of what most people carry, and if I'm ever injured to the point where I'm unable to care for myself or my insurance doesn't do it, that's what the final insurance policy is for, the one written in carbon steel by Smith & Wesson.
The people who are most likely to flout safety measures such as seat belts and helmets are statistically those who are most likely to have either inadequate or no insurance to cover them in case of a catastrophic accident fueled by their own stupidity.
It's even funnier that many people who scream the loudest about individual choice and freedom are apparently those who are willing to throw that straight out the window and jump onto the back of society at large if their own stupidity renders them unable to care for themselves.
I never knew that taking responsibility for one's own actions was the same as abrogating responsibility and letting society at large clean up the mess...
I have absolutely no expectation of ever doing that. I carry insurance far in excess of what most people carry, and if I'm ever injured to the point where I'm unable to care for myself or my insurance doesn't do it, that's what the final insurance policy is for, the one written in carbon steel by Smith & Wesson.
Anchored:
A child is not an adult.
Nor is it true that the state stands in the same relation to an adult citizen, as a parent stands to his child.
But a lot of people seem to think that is the case, and that is why we have a proliferation of nosy laws and a dearth of common sense.
pax
Mind your own business and you won't be minding mine. -- Hank Williams
A child is not an adult.
Nor is it true that the state stands in the same relation to an adult citizen, as a parent stands to his child.
But a lot of people seem to think that is the case, and that is why we have a proliferation of nosy laws and a dearth of common sense.
pax
Mind your own business and you won't be minding mine. -- Hank Williams
- Status
