Is it the government's responsibility to pass laws that keep me safe?

[her209]

Take for instance, seat belt laws where seat belt use is mandatory (in most states, if not all). Instead of making it mandatory, should the government be allowed to make recommendations such as wear seatbelts may save your life and not doing so may result in death. I guess what I'm getting to is that, should an individual be allowed to make personal choices regarding their life, if that choice only affects him/her knowing full well of the risks beforehand.

Before, someone jumps on me about laws regarding speeding and such, to that I say that speeding can cause the death of other drivers and their passengers.

After all, if wearing seatbelts has dramatically increased our chances of surviving a crash, does that mean we can drive at higher speeds?

Finally, yes, I know... driving is a privelge, not a right.

 

[ntdz]

I think the government should only be able to make laws to protect citizens from OTHER citizens, not themselves. So, in the case of the seat belt law, I don't think it's justified.

 

[Harvey]

• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
  
  We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would think so. :thumbsup:

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
  
  We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would think so. :thumbsup:

You're usually very vocal about your objections to the governemnt becoming involved in our personal life. Why the sudden change of thought?

 

[CQuinn]

We the people of the United States

We are the Government. Sometimes we forget that it is the collective will and effort of the people that is
supposed to be the basis of law. When we do forget that, then it opens the potential for Government to
no longer be working in our best interests.

 

[Worlocked]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
We the people of the United States

We are the Government. Sometimes we forget that it is the collective will and effort of the people that is
supposed to be the basis of law. When we do forget that, then it opens the potential for Government to
no longer be working in our best interests.

Wrong. God this is like the third time today I'm going to have to go over this. I'm just going to cut and paste.


Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson

You could argue that we are a representative Democracy, but you would be wrong, the Constitution is the highest order of law, or more specificly, the SCOTUS.

From wikipedia:

The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. conservative and Libertarian debate.

The original framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. (See Tyranny of the majority below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [3] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.)



Also see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotus

 

[techs]

I kind of like the fact the government makes sure my food doesn't contain dangerous chemicals or bacteria(at least not in overtly dangerous amounts)
I also like the fact that my bank can't bury a little line somewhere in my checking account agreement where I have to give them my first born.
Or that the government requires cars to have headlights and brakes that work.
And as to seat belts, I like the fact that car makers were forced into offering them and then made mandatory. I never believed that all the car makers couldn't make seat belts for less than 1500.00 per car, back in 1960 (thats like 6,000 dollars in todays money).
I really like the fact that since people are wearing seatbelts my no-fault insurance has not had to pay out huge amounts more, and the roads aren't full of ambulances rushing at high speed to scrape some joker off the pavement (endangering me while I drive)etc.
Heck, back before the government protected me people were eating radium to help their health and candies had so much lead that they could double as an anchor.

 

[engineereeyore]

In the case of the seatbelt, I believe there is justifiable reason. Although not the norm, you can go flying out of your car and cause damage or injury to property or people in the process. So I think there is some logic as far as it actually being able to affect other people as well.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Harvey

• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
  
  We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would think so. :thumbsup:

okay the million dollar question...

Where does it say-- and to pass law`s that keep me safe??

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Harvey

• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
  
  We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would think so. :thumbsup:

okay the million dollar question...

Where does it say-- and to pass law`s that keep me safe??

It's a questionable extension of 'the general welfare' just like most federal law is an (even more) questionable extension of 'commerce'.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: techs
I kind of like the fact the government makes sure my food doesn't contain dangerous chemicals or bacteria(at least not in overtly dangerous amounts)
I also like the fact that my bank can't bury a little line somewhere in my checking account agreement where I have to give them my first born.
Or that the government requires cars to have headlights and brakes that work.
And as to seat belts, I like the fact that car makers were forced into offering them and then made mandatory. I never believed that all the car makers couldn't make seat belts for less than 1500.00 per car, back in 1960 (thats like 6,000 dollars in todays money).
I really like the fact that since people are wearing seatbelts my no-fault insurance has not had to pay out huge amounts more, and the roads aren't full of ambulances rushing at high speed to scrape some joker off the pavement (endangering me while I drive)etc.
Heck, back before the government protected me people were eating radium to help their health and candies had so much lead that they could double as an anchor.

Those regulations are a joke. You think it works because GM or Ford decides to yank a couple million cars to fix a break or whatever after a dozen or more people die or get seriously injured but do they go to jail? Are they even investigated? If so then by whom and what is the result of those investigations? Who's fault was it that the break failed? Was it some poor SOB working overtime and heavily sleep deprived working at an affiliate plant making breaks for Ford trucks or what? Perhaps it was the material failing. Was the material made to specifications or did they skim on the quality of the material to make an extra buck? Perhaps it was none of those and it was no one's fault or perhaps it was all of those and it was everyone's fault. Perhaps it was just all an accident and a Ford truck just wasn't meant to go off roading and having its break line smashed up against rocks.

Which is it? Do you know? I certainlly don't. Yet we pat ourselves on the back for how well the system works for getting all those millions of vehicles fixed so that it wouldn't happen again. Great.

What about all those dead and injured? Sure there's an insurance but where is justice? Where?

No. Regulation is not safety. It is an illusion of safety that in many cases is far cheaper to ignore and pay when caught then it is to follow.

What you need is no regulation. Instead of enforcement of a paper hardly anyone takes seriously you need to start chopping heads. A break line is causing deaths? Investigate, do not negotiate, prosecute (criminally if you have to) and fill jails with the ones who mass murder, maim and butcher who knows how many and get away with it with virtually no chance of jail or worse.

Where would you get the money to do this? End the Drug War and establish proper penalties that fit the crime in each case that not only puts these bastards behind bars but also bleeds their business' dry.

When you start filling prisons with top executives who before had golden parachutes and got away with murder you will end up getting respect for others and realize that you can't get away with hurting the population.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Harvey

• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America
  
  We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would think so. :thumbsup:

by your interpretation i would hate to think what else could fall under that category

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think the government should only be able to make laws to protect citizens from OTHER citizens, not themselves. So, in the case of the seat belt law, I don't think it's justified.

I agree. I don't think the goverment should have the authority to make you wear a seat belt, helmet, or even put you child in a car seat, if you don't want to.

Do those laws save lives? Yes, but that should be the incentive for people to do those things, not an intrusive law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think the government should only be able to make laws to protect citizens from OTHER citizens, not themselves. So, in the case of the seat belt law, I don't think it's justified.

Allow people to not wear a seat belt has the protect me from wait for them to clean idiots brains off the road way. What is wrong with the goverment passing laws that increase the utiliation of goverment resources.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
We the people of the United States

We are the Government.

'We' are the government? So that means that when I am shipped off to war in a foreign land against my will by warmongering politicians that was 'me' doing it to 'myself?'

This thread wreaks of bullsh!t from the democracy worshippers.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Government should stay 100% out of personal affairs. However, there would need to be serious regulation of the various insurance fields if that were to happen. Insurance is, in essence, socialism for capitalists. As it stands right now insurance companies have far too much influence regarding laws in order to maximize their profits. If the government abandoned all safety legislation insurance would go out of control as they attempted to compensate.

 

[BigLouis]

Ahh, the tired old seatbelt law argument. Learn and understand why it's instituted before spouting off idiotic rhetoric.

Should you have freedom of choice not wear your seatbelt so you'll be a drain on the economy the rest of your life because you suffered traumatic head injury?