TSA vs seat belts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Nov 16, 2009.

?

Seat belts - (read post # 1 before voting)

  1. I tend to be CONSERVATIVE - seat belts SHOULD BE required

    8 vote(s)
    44.4%
  2. I tend to be CONSERVATIVE - seat belts should NOT be required

    4 vote(s)
    22.2%
  3. I tend to be LIBERAL - seat belts SHOULD BE required

    1 vote(s)
    5.6%
  4. I tend to be LIBERAL - seat belts should NOT be required

    1 vote(s)
    5.6%
  5. I tend to be LIBERTARIAN - seat belts SHOULD BE required

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. I tend to be LIBERTARIAN - seat belts should NOT be required

    2 vote(s)
    11.1%
  7. Other answer

    2 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    Actually this thread has nothing to do with the TSA, but I am posting this poll because of some so-called answers on the thread about the TSA Taken Down . The post was about a man being stopped at an airport for having about 5 Grand in cash. Some thought the govt has no business asking why someone carries that much cash; that the individual should decide what is excessive.

    I posted that the govt has no business posting a speed limit - that the individual should decide what an excessive speed limit is. I guess the libs do not understand an analogy.

    Anyways this poll is about seat belts. the actual question is "Should Govt have the right to make you wear a seat belt for adults in your vehicle"

    I am not asking if the govt does have the right or any other way to twist it. The debate is not about how safe or unsafe seat belts may or may not be. Simply should govt keeps it nose out of my car? NOTE: this discussion is not about making kids under 21 wearing a seat belt - just adults.
     
    #1 Salty, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2009
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no "right" to drive, and there's no "right" to fly. So, yes, the government can, and should, regulate one's privilege, even if the way it regulates it is stupid.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    So since, the Constitution does not give me the right to eat hamburgers at McDondalds, they could pass a law that would require anyone with a license plate ending in an odd number could only eat at Burger King? :BangHead:

    plate numbers ending with an odd # - Burger King
    plate numbers ending with an even # McDondalds
    plate numbers ending with A-L Wendys
    plate numbers ending with M-Z Hardees
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sheesh! There's a difference between doing business with a private establishment, and taking a motor vehicle onto a state-regulated road. I assumed you would have known the difference, but that's what happens when I assume.
     
  5. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, this may sound off-topic, but stay with me:

    This is the main reason I abhor government healthcare. You see...when I begin to pay for your healthcare...then I have the "right" to tell you to wear a seatbelt...because "I'm helping pay for it," and thus feel as though I should have a vote in your choices. If we left things with the individual, then we wouldn't have to have daddy government hold our hand through life.

    Heck, I think we oughta wear a helmet and bubble wrap 24/7. It might stop someone from getting hurt!
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    Rbell you are not off topic - I totally agree with you on that point. Again - the power to tax is the power to control. Obama care is nothing more than power control.

    But back to jOHNV I'll admit I was a bit facetious with my example (but remember - they did use that "Oregon Plan" back during the so-called gas shortage of the mid '70's.)
    But suppose the govt came out and rationed how much junk food you could eat - from a "a private establishment"
    Look at how many govt controls we currently have - even Pres Bush signed a law that will outlaw the old style light bulbs.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, the difference is private vs public. If you wanna drive your car on a private road, or private driveway, then bon appetit. But if you're driving on a public-controlled highway, then yes, the government has the right to regulate your behavior while on it, which can include the use of seat belts. I'm not saying I necessarily like it, I'm saying the government has a right to legislate it.

    And no, Bush didn't sign a law "outlawing" light bulbs. He signed a law requiring that all light bulbs must use 25 to 30 percent less energy than they did in 2007. This is one area where the private industry has not kept up with the times, even though the technology to make cheap and more efficient bulbs has been around for years. And since the bill's signing, the price of new technology bulbs has dropped tremendously. LED bulbs, which used to be $50 each, have already dropped to just a few bucks each, and are many times more efficient than the law requires.
     
    #7 Johnv, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2009
  8. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    The problem with not wearing seat belts is that if you get hurt, you affect me. Your extra injuries cost the insurance company and eat into their profits thus raising my premiums. Even worse, if you don't have insurance, treating your extra injuries cost the government and the health care system, again raising the cost of health care and raising the costs of my premiums. And, if you are disabled because of your stupidity, then my tax dollars have to support your stupid decision and your disabled b*tt for the rest of your depleted life. If you want to kill yourself, hurt yourself, etc., that's your business. But you shouldn't be allowed to do it at my expense or anyone else s for that matter. Plus, your selfish right affects the people who love you. Your right to crash through the windshield of your vehicle and then to have your own car run over you (finishing you off) just cost a child a mom or a dad, a mom and dad their child, a wife or husband the benefit of your presence in their life. You leave many of us staring into a six foot hole that represents your personal choice to be stupid.

    I know you can shoot holes in this but to me wearing a seat belt is much different than telling someone what they can eat and how much they can eat. There are a lot of factors that would make that too difficult to regulate. But, a seat belt is such a simple thing that saves lives, prevents unnecessary injuries, and reduces health care costs.
     
    #8 sag38, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2009
  9. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,149
    Likes Received:
    365
    I agree. Totally.
     
  10. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those who think that seatbelts should not be required...

    Would you apply your same thinking process and logic to bumpers?

    Should car bumpers be required?
     
  11. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yes! I love Wendy's!:godisgood:
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    Nope, they should be optional
     
  13. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes! But to require us to USE them!?!?!?
     
  14. twpaige

    twpaige
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting topic... I am a very vocal advocate of smaller government, yet realize we need laws and therefore need government to some extent. Folks could take the banning Big Macs arguement here, but that's a little nutso. I see the different ideas as binary and analog.

    Seatbelts are binary. (A simple ON or OFF state).
    Fast food is analog. (A limitless range of values between 1 and infinity).

    I don't mind wearing my seatbelt, it's become a habit and I feel naked when I'm not wearing it and wouldn't consider going on a highway without it snapped. I think the legislation on seatbelts was straight-forward and has done much to safeguard our citizenry. I say it's a good thing, much like a speed limit.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bumpers? you gots to be kidding! In the bad old days when a car hit a fireplug the fireplug broke. These days the car is totalled and fire hydrant doesn't have a scratch.

    Maybe we should also ban skiing and hiking. Boats with more than 10 hp. Fat burgers and french fries. private aircraft. sky diving. Anyone who jumps put of a perfectly good airplane should be locked up in a funny farm.
     
  16. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you saw my helmet after my motorcycle accident last month, you certainly would believe in helmets. Without mine I would not be present here today!
     
  17. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps, if we all had to do without these safety nets of government and insurance, and recognize that each of us becomes responsible for the outcomes of our own choices and risks, we'd each be more careful and safety conscious and teach this caution to our children as well. Then, if something does happen for which a person did not provide for their consequences, which forced them into receiving the compassionate care of underfunded charities, while their care might be provided for, their position would more apt be related to what was available with a degree of concern given for the relative weight others assume they had in the cause of their condition...... and reduce the indulgence in risks.... financial, personal, and placing one's family and prosperity at risk.

    If a product is obvious defective and causes harm because it doesn't work safely the way it was meant..... that's one thing.... for the company to be liable for individuals injury. If a person is careless and their carelessness causes harm to another, let them be sued for all they are worth and their future put in hock. But if a person is aware of the normal risks and safety features and refuses to follow good habits and loses an eye, a finger, or a life..... should bear the burden of his own risks.

    We've got too much government promising us too much protection and adding to it too many laws and regulations which add cost, and then they are unable to do all that they proposed to do. We've too much government intervention..... too much government. There is really only one solution to all the progressive moves and the growth of government.... but that will only happen if people start seeing ourselves as part of the problem in our dependance on government and start insisting on our independance and accepting our responsibilities for ourselves and each other without placing these demands on government.
     
  18. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    In retrospect...... I think seat belts should be a required provision of safety by the transportation industry (including personal vehicles). There use should be governed by local law and not the federal government. If people see the need for seat belt use and their insurance premiums are reduced, then they are more likely to want it 'for the general good' within the economy of their community, and the regulation may become a means of revenue from those who refuse to the local coffers. If, instead, the injuries or loss of life don't seem related to seat belt use in a particular community, but is related to other habits related to drivers and safety........then the community chooses to regulate or correct those problems belonging to it.
     
  19. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    that I could go along with.

    I am surprised at the number of "conservatives" who think the govt should have a seat belt law!
    I was wondering if you all think that the govt should require you to attend an annual 8 hour classroom driving course.
    How about retaking a road test every 5 years?

    Salty

    PS- did you know that 50% of all individuals who die in motor vehicle collisions were wearing thier seat belt?
     
  20. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not be surprised. In fact, I would think the cause of most or all deaths involveing motor vehicles are accidents/ collisions and most of these are caused by inattention. A seat belt or air bag may add to survival rate but does nothing to change the inattention or (more rarely) equipment failure which caused the accident in the first place.
     

Share This Page

Loading...