Motorcyclist killed in helmet law protest

reply to post by ExCommando


I wonder if they will go and travel to biker shows with photos of his mangled head (poor guy, but really?) - to encourage bikers to wear helmets. The same way they travel around with these mangled cars that are unrecognizeable from drunk driving accidents to convince people to not drink and drive and wear seatbelts, etc.

Probably not, but just sayin'

Originally posted by Byeluvolk

Originally posted by The_Phantom
'Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.' -Gandhi

Did this guy make the wrong decision? Yeah he did and it cost him his life. Should you wear a helmet? Yeah you should. I know someone that only survived a serious head injury because he had a helmet on. I can see the advantages of doing so, and if I'm on a bike you can bet that I'd be smart enough to wear a helmet. With that being said I believe that you have the right to make the wrong decision if it only effects yourself, nobody else should be able to make it for you, not in a free society.

Ok take this to the next step however. Some people I know were out riding one day, and knowing them they were probably being stupid. They liked to race, ride wheelies, and generally act the fool on their bikes as it made them feel “cool.” However, on said day, they had some mix-up and ended up dumping their bikes on the freeway. One of them was wearing his helmet, and he was lucky, the truck behind him ran over his head and his helmet saved him. However, the other was not so lucky, he hit his head and died. The point to this is his family is now living on welfare, as his wife can’t get a job. Thus, She and their 4 kids are now on the verge of being homeless. We assist this family daily from the shelters we work with. We take them food and clothing etc. to supplement their government assistance.

The point I am trying to make is it is not just your life you are staking on the decision to wear a helmet. While on the surface I agree that big government telling us what to do and not to do is a bad thing. I also see where this helmet law and for that matter seatbelt laws are there to protect more than just the person wearing the protective device. So I am sort of on the fence with this one. While I hate the “big brother” type of governing, I also see that some laws while distasteful are also for the better. Many laws we think of as sound also seem ludicrous to others. Public intoxication; “If I am drunk and not driving a car why does it matter?” Public indecency; “If we are both consenting adults who cares where we have sex?” etc. Some laws just need to be accepted for the greater good.

edit on 4-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

It sounds to me like his death was a direct cause of fooling around on a bike, so maybe bikes should be banned since they are dangerous for the common good. People die in car accidents so maybe they should be banned for the common good. This guy was just walking down the side of the road and almost died, so maybe people should't be allowed to walk down the side of the road, its for the common good.



'The common good'

TSA needs to touch people inappropriately for the common good. Guns can be used to kill people you shouldn't have them for the common good. The government doesn't work as efficiently when they have to wait for votes, so much could be done if the government just makes decisions for us for the common good. In fact they could reorganize the way everybody gets their food and homes they could end all suffering if they had just a little more control over every one's lives, its for the common good.

Common good, it sounds so innocent and helpful...but the way I see it there is a reason that the root word for Communism is common.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."-Jefferson

It is not the Job of the government to take care of the people, he should have worn his helmet but that has nothing to do with law or I should say that it shouldn't have anything to do with it.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes"-Gandhi

There's two types of motorcycle riders, those who have crashed and those who are going to crash. So not wearing a helmet because of lame excuses and "right to kill myself" bs is just ignorant. Think of the poor b4stard that has to clean your brain matter off the road. Maybe you anti helmet activists should go on a couple motorcycle accident ambulance calls. The shmuck in the op just helped prove the need for helmets and helmet laws. And yes that is irony at it's finest.

If I’m honest it has always baffled me why America has not brought this in sooner.. But will the law apply to the three wheeler bikes, or will these still be classed as cars?
(For whatever stupid reason they currently are)

Here in the UK you would get points on your license, fined & a possible court hearing for being caught without a helmet. Hell, I was on my way to a skate park in London and got pulled aside by a Police Officer for not having a front brake on my push bike. £30 fine for only having one brake? On a bike designed for jumps & tricks? Are you mad officer!?..

As for not wearing a helmet in general, i believe it is a civilians right to choose, but only to a degree.

• Motorcycle = 100% Wear A Helmet
  
• Push Bike = 100% Your Choice
  

IMO.

reply to post by imawlinn


You said it yourself, eventually all riders crash.

Helmet or not that same schmuck is going to be cleaning the road regardless.

There is no way to justify using force of law to mandate helmet use. It's not for safety. If safety were the issue motorcycles would be banned. The greater number of deaths lies with the bike not the helmet.

Emergency response is not the issue. Once a crash happens, helmet or not, the response is the same.

All of this "think of the children" nonsense either as witness to horror or as children left without a parent is absurd and cartoonish.

The only real measurable reasons there are for this sort of legislation are revenue, control and pacification of idiots as a method of vote buying.

Otherwise we'd see full measures like motorcycle banning. Of course the majority always tramples the minority. More people do not ride than ride. Of that number more wear helmets than not. So helmet wearers and non-riders have the might to dictate what's right.

It's only a matter of time before the non-riders push to ban the motorcycle altogether from public roads. There are more non-riders than riders after all and everyone is happy to blame anyone but themselves for accidents. You see this all the time with bicyclists. Non-cyclists constantly push to ban bicycles from public roads or put restrictions on them that make doing so prohibitive such as carrying extra insurances, mounting massive flags and alerts, none of which keeps them safe from a reckless driver.

It's only a matter of time when some mob gets it into their heads that they know what's best and the nest way to impose what they know is through force.

Originally posted by The_Phantom

'The common good'

TSA needs to touch people inappropriately for the common good. Guns can be used to kill people you shouldn't have them for the common good. The government doesn't work as efficiently when they have to wait for votes, so much could be done if the government just makes decisions for us for the common good. In fact they could reorganize the way everybody gets their food and homes they could end all suffering if they had just a little more control over every one's lives, its for the common good.

Common good, it sounds so innocent and helpful...but the way I see it there is a reason that the root word for Communism is common.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."-Jefferson

It is not the Job of the government to take care of the people, he should have worn his helmet but that has nothing to do with law or I should say that it shouldn't have anything to do with it.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes"-Gandhi

edit on 5-7-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)

You have missed the point of my post. I am not saying the common good is to remove the possibility of harm, but to lessen the harm to others. People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death. Or even worse, in the even of your serious injury. This causes even more hardship for them as they now have the added burden of extended medical bills on top of the daily need to survive. As I stated, I am 100% against the "Big Brother" government, but sometimes we must look at the bigger picture, it is not always about "me" it is more often than not about "we". And while people can look at this and say it still should be their choice. They then push the burden of seeing to their families survival on the rest of the community. Most will see this and accept the responsibility and wear the helmet of their own free will. However others will not and rely on the charity of others to see to their family afterwords.


It is no different than saying "Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?" While most people understand this and do not act upon this urge. There are times when a law is needed to try and ensure this does not happen as often as it otherwise would. There is no way to make life 100% safe that is not my point at all. It is just that in some cases, people do not see the consequences of their actions, unless someone forces them to examine their ideals. If indeed the helmet law was only affecting the rider I would be against it as well. However the riders many times have families depending on them, and this law is more to protect them than the rider. This goes for the seat belt idea as well.

On the subject of walking down the road. Yes people do get killed just minding their own business, however I am pretty safe is saying that 99% of the time the injury was caused by someone else not following the rules. Drunk drivers, texting on cell phones while driving, speeding, etc. All of these laws could be fought on the basis of "Who cares if I crash my car? It is my life." However the sad truth is that it is not just your life, in this case it is very directly not just you. While in the case of the helmet is is not always so.

So no, I do not feel the need to ban anything that is potentially dangerous. But if people refuse to be responsible where the safety or well being of others in in question, then yes I do see that a reminder to do so may be warranted. The issue here is not the freedom of the riders/drivers, but rather what impact their actions have on others. An individual's freedoms only extend to the point that they do not adversely affect others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

As for TSA that is another topic for another day. I really see no need for TSA as I have stated before. There are far better ways to get their job done more effectively and far cheaper. And Guns? Well I own many guns, and do indeed support many laws concerning guns. Waiting periods for example, this in no way prevents you from buying the gun, assuming you are not a felon or something. However, it does help to mitigate the harm you may do to others with the gun, should you be so inclined.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

And yet you think you are a slave because you cant wear a helmet? LOL "My job keeps me from speaking my mind, but the government really crossed a line when they told me I have to wear a helmet!" Come on. I dont think the helmet has a thing to do with your slavery.

No, I think being forced to wear a helmet is merely evidence that we are all in fact, property. My current self-imposed servitude is irrelevant to this slavery. The government has not as you say "crossed the line" by forcing this upon us; to the contrary it is a benevolent action of our masters to force safety upon their property.

Some people simply have a problem with being property, and think that they themselves can govern their own lives, and even own themselves! Can you imagine the nerve of those cattle? Why, i'd even bet that they think they can be their own masters......

Do you at least see the point i'm trying to make here? It is simply antagonistic to force such measures upon a supposedly "free" people. But as always, there is only a small portion of the populace who see this for what it is, and it grates upon us. The rest are enchanted with their slavery, and will even defend it.

Moral of the story: Legislation, be it noble or unjust, will only EVER subjugate law-abiding citizens. If legislation has no effect on those who discard all authority regardless, then why have it? What good comes from increasingly strict legislation? What harm comes from loose but solid legislation?

The age old question: If I am truly free, and not a slave, then what business is it of ANY other person, how I treat my own self?

Originally posted by Byeluvolk
People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death.

So lets make a "high risk" list that any individual with any dependents must refrain from participating in.

What should the criteria be? Could life insurance alter the prohibition?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Byeluvolk
People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death.

So lets make a "high risk" list that any individual with any dependents must refrain from participating in.

What should the criteria be? Could life insurance alter the prohibition?

No there is no need for a list. and no need to ban said activities. I have never once said to ban motorcycles in any way. The only thing I am arguing for the welfare of the families left behind. For that matter if the rider in question has no dependents, I would also waive the helmet law. But now we are making this law very complex. I am not fond of this as it creates a new set of problems. But that is nothing new.


Yes indeed. Life insurance in the case of the motorcycle helmet would negate the monetary drain on the families left behind, assuming it is of a high enough value. As I said the only reason I back such a law is the fact that a needless death affects those left behind. Just as in auto insurance, if you have the required amount of cash set aside in an escrow account you can forgo annual auto insurance. If the monetary needs of those left behind was to be covered, then yes I have no problem with the rider taking his or her life in their own hands. I have stated this many times.


Bottom line: If the rider has no dependents, or the financial well being of said dependent is somehow seen to I have no problems with no helmet. Be this from the oversight of insurance, or some other means. As I have stated the "ONLY" reason I back this law is that of the financial welfare of those left behind.


****EDIT

I do not campaign for this law in any way, as a matter of fact in my daily life I do not care one way or the other. I only state my opinions here to show how in my life I have seen the affects this has on a family left behind. This is a fact many overlook. There is in fact no assurance that if this young man had a helmet on he would still be alive. There are many ways he could have died in this accident. It just so happens it was a head injury that could have been prevented. Do not get me wrong, I am not someone out protesting helmet less riders, I am just pointing this out for the sake of the discussion. I have never voted for, nor will I ever vote for, a law of this sort. As I have stated I do not want big brother any more than you. I am just stating that if this law is in force I would not protest it either. As I can see where the financial side of this type of law would help those left behind. There is a fine line between big government forcing us to comply and ensuring the welfare of the families. I see the need to ensure the welfare, but no I do not agree with "Big Brother" in any way.

reply to post by dubiousone


I said that he determined his own course, not his own end.

As an aside, I tend to be a type of fatalist, so stating that he determined his own course is me commenting more about who was "steering" than where the ability to steer originates from. But that's a deeper discussion, and you've missed my point on this more simple subject; I am just noting it for others to follow my defense against your partially formed reply.
Furthermore, repeating what happened doesn't progress the conversation.

Lastly, the "rules" (laws of physics) are only partially related to this issue since this issue does touch on the concept of self-determination and leaves what we understand to be "domino-effect" physics.

So then, more on topic; If I was in his position, I'd feel pretty stupid "in retrospect," but I tend not to get involved with dangerous situations by choice. Wisdom is greater than any law and should be legislated within our own hearts.

Originally posted by Byeluvolk

Originally posted by The_Phantom

'The common good'

TSA needs to touch people inappropriately for the common good. Guns can be used to kill people you shouldn't have them for the common good. The government doesn't work as efficiently when they have to wait for votes, so much could be done if the government just makes decisions for us for the common good. In fact they could reorganize the way everybody gets their food and homes they could end all suffering if they had just a little more control over every one's lives, its for the common good.

Common good, it sounds so innocent and helpful...but the way I see it there is a reason that the root word for Communism is common.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."-Jefferson

It is not the Job of the government to take care of the people, he should have worn his helmet but that has nothing to do with law or I should say that it shouldn't have anything to do with it.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes"-Gandhi

edit on 5-7-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)

You have missed the point of my post. I am not saying the common good is to remove the possibility of harm, but to lessen the harm to others. People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death. Or even worse, in the even of your serious injury. This causes even more hardship for them as they now have the added burden of extended medical bills on top of the daily need to survive. As I stated, I am 100% against the "Big Brother" government, but sometimes we must look at the bigger picture, it is not always about "me" it is more often than not about "we". And while people can look at this and say it still should be their choice. They then push the burden of seeing to their families survival on the rest of the community. Most will see this and accept the responsibility and wear the helmet of their own free will. However others will not and rely on the charity of others to see to their family afterwords.


It is no different than saying "Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?" While most people understand this and do not act upon this urge. There are times when a law is needed to try and ensure this does not happen as often as it otherwise would. There is no way to make life 100% safe that is not my point at all. It is just that in some cases, people do not see the consequences of their actions, unless someone forces them to examine their ideals. If indeed the helmet law was only affecting the rider I would be against it as well. However the riders many times have families depending on them, and this law is more to protect them than the rider. This goes for the seat belt idea as well.

On the subject of walking down the road. Yes people do get killed just minding their own business, however I am pretty safe is saying that 99% of the time the injury was caused by someone else not following the rules. Drunk drivers, texting on cell phones while driving, speeding, etc. All of these laws could be fought on the basis of "Who cares if I crash my car? It is my life." However the sad truth is that it is not just your life, in this case it is very directly not just you. While in the case of the helmet is is not always so.

So no, I do not feel the need to ban anything that is potentially dangerous. But if people refuse to be responsible where the safety or well being of others in in question, then yes I do see that a reminder to do so may be warranted. The issue here is not the freedom of the riders/drivers, but rather what impact their actions have on others. An individual's freedoms only extend to the point that they do not adversely affect others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

As for TSA that is another topic for another day. I really see no need for TSA as I have stated before. There are far better ways to get their job done more effectively and far cheaper. And Guns? Well I own many guns, and do indeed support many laws concerning guns. Waiting periods for example, this in no way prevents you from buying the gun, assuming you are not a felon or something. However, it does help to mitigate the harm you may do to others with the gun, should you be so inclined.

edit on 5-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Jul 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

I understand what your saying, but it is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, even for the common good.

"It is no different than saying, 'Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?'"

It's very different then that, one is self determination the other is directly determining someone else's life, two very opposite things.

Most actions effect other people though in one way or another, for instance when a business sells it's company and lays off workers many people are left with very little. That's just the way a free society works, you loose security in exchange for liberty. I think you've missed the point of my argument. You can not have both, the government can either 'keep you safe' or you can be free and it's your job and if others around you are kind enough theirs as well. Maybe you don't like the all of the burdens that go along with freedom, that's fine, if you want to be kept safe by your government I understand, if you want the government to be involved with every little tiny detail of our lives, that's up to you. But we just celebrated Independence Day and I'm feeling pretty Independent. I really don't want anything to do with a society that has a government that acts for the 'common good' I would much rather live in a country that had a government that acted very little and deal with the inconveniences that come with liberty.

Originally posted by The_Phantom

I understand what your saying, but it is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, even for the common good.

"It is no different than saying, 'Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?'"

It's very different then that, one is self determination the other is directly determining someone else's life, two very opposite things.

Most actions effect other people though in one way or another, for instance when a business sells it's company and lays off workers many people are left with very little. That's just the way a free society works, you loose security in exchange for liberty. I think you've missed the point of my argument. You can not have both, the government can either 'keep you safe' or you can be free and it's your job and if others around you are kind enough theirs as well. Maybe you don't like the all of the burdens that go along with freedom, that's fine, if you want to be kept safe by your government I understand, if you want the government to be involved with every little tiny detail of our lives, that's up to you. But we just celebrated Independence Day and I'm feeling pretty Independent. I really don't want anything to do with a society that has a government that acts for the 'common good' I would much rather live in a country that had a government that acted very little and deal with the inconveniences that come with liberty.

Again I am not, advocating any such government. I am just stating that sometimes people do not think some of these things through to the end. As in this case our choices may indeed directly affect others. My concern is not that the government needs to regulate this action, but rather we needs to try to get people to realize the consequences of such actions. It is just that at some point we need to realize that in our eagerness to be free we may indeed be taking it too far. The case I mentioned about public indecency for instance. Do you agree that this is a good law? Preventing people from sexual conduct in public? As it could be argued we are infringing on their rights by not allowing consenting adults to engage in sexual acts anywhere and anytime they choose. This is the same idea here. In reality it can be said that their actions do not harm anybody directly therefore it should not be illegal. Keep in mind am only playing devil’s advocate here, as I have stated I am not in favor or government telling me anything. However in some cases I can see when such legislation is made I can set aside this desire to be free of their attentions, when there is a real benefit in doing so. Sure this can be taken too far, like trying to ban the motorcycle in the first place. But a small concession now and then is what civilized society is based on. If we automatically say that governments are not allowed to tell us what to do, we end up in anarchy, where the only law that matters is the law of might. Then you do not just have a government telling you to wear a helmet, you have some warlord telling you that you are a slave.

Just to be clear I do not wish the helmet law on anybody. I just want to point out that in some cases a small infraction on one’s personal liberties may indeed be a compromise worth making, if that in turn has a real and tangible benefit to others. We all can’t have everything our way all the time, as what one person deems valuable is not the same as another person. Just saying a little give and take where there is a real benefit to someone is not necessarily a bad thing. As I am sure I could find a law you do support, that could be argued such that it infringes on someone else’s rights. It is just the way civilized people function. As I said I am not so much “for the helmet” as I am “for ensuring your choice does not leave your family destitute”. I spend much of my life helping homeless and needy people, and I can see where even a small amount of change in certain places could make huge changes in the lives of these people. So as mentioned in other discussions, if this law was not so much about wearing a helmet, as it were about ensuring your choice "not to" will not adversely affect others.

I know the more I talk about this the less conviction I have, as I really do not wish big government in any form. It is more of an emotional argument to just get people to think about the consequences of their actions before they blindly rebel just for the sake of a small change. I know the more you give the more they take and all that. But sometimes society makes demands that we may not like, but must endure.

This is an area I can see we will never agree on. You are set in your idea that any infraction on your personal liberties is never ok. While I believe a little give and take for the benefit of others is ok. I know I will not convince you to change your mind. And I know you will not convince me to change mine, even if I can see on an intellectual level I even agree with you to some degree.

reply to post by Byeluvolk


Yeah, and I can see where you are coming from, it's all good that we have different opinions on the subject. I think anarchy and Anarchy are two different things though. Most 'Anarchists' however don't even know the difference. Anarchy or the lack of law doesn't mean might is right, a successful one would mean that everybody must be responsible for their actions, public opinion is every bit as powerful as making something legal or illegal. What makes something legal, that it is written on a piece of paper? So because it is written on paper somewhere it makes people do something that they should be doing anyway? I don't really think that 'laws' have an effect on what the average person does, knowing right and wrong is what does in my opinion. It just means that people who believe that piece of paper with the 'law' written on it is sacred, have power over you and can punish you for being disobedient. We both agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea, but your right we will probably never agree on the government having the power to punish someone for not doing what they are told. But I appreciate the way you defend your points, and it's just a friendly disagreement.

reply to post by The_Phantom



Yes, there is no animosity here. That is the very reason I waited something like 3 years to actually create an account and post. I very rarely see "Debate" what I see is "Hate." However recently some posts have hit close to home as they touch on the plight of the homless so I felt compelled to create the account and post.

On this topic of motorcycle helmets, I would not have posted other than as I mentioned, I saw a very real incident where one mans desision to not wear his helmet directly affected other people. As in reality I do not have any desire to promote wear the helmet laws. It was just the topic of the day that caught my eye.

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

And yet you think you are a slave because you cant wear a helmet? LOL "My job keeps me from speaking my mind, but the government really crossed a line when they told me I have to wear a helmet!" Come on. I dont think the helmet has a thing to do with your slavery.

No, I think being forced to wear a helmet is merely evidence that we are all in fact, property. My current self-imposed servitude is irrelevant to this slavery. The government has not as you say "crossed the line" by forcing this upon us; to the contrary it is a benevolent action of our masters to force safety upon their property.

Some people simply have a problem with being property, and think that they themselves can govern their own lives, and even own themselves! Can you imagine the nerve of those cattle? Why, i'd even bet that they think they can be their own masters......

Do you at least see the point i'm trying to make here? It is simply antagonistic to force such measures upon a supposedly "free" people. But as always, there is only a small portion of the populace who see this for what it is, and it grates upon us. The rest are enchanted with their slavery, and will even defend it.

Moral of the story: Legislation, be it noble or unjust, will only EVER subjugate law-abiding citizens. If legislation has no effect on those who discard all authority regardless, then why have it? What good comes from increasingly strict legislation? What harm comes from loose but solid legislation?

The age old question: If I am truly free, and not a slave, then what business is it of ANY other person, how I treat my own self?

Its nice to see that you have a nice big self righteous speech whipped up, but it means nothing....by your own admission, you refuse to act on your principles. You wont become politically involved.....but sure dont mind being an internet windbag.

If you felt so strongly about being property, Id think you would do something about it, besides of talk in anonymity online. That was my point.

Carry on.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


While you, on the other hand, seem to have a remarkable ability to insinuate and hear words never spoken.
Most of your post is nothing more than inflammatory, however I will not respond in kind. I will however, try to correct your assumptions. It's not that I will not become involved, it's that I cannot, legally. Big difference.

The helmet issue is merely the symptom of a larger problem, and so long as I wear this uniform, there are certain issues that I cannot speak out on. I am not, as you say, talking in anonymity online. My "employer" regularly utilizes "middle management" to keep tabs on various "workers" for various reasons. What I would like to say, I cannot even speak of online without reprisal.

Hopefully that clears this up for you. With that being said, you're free to think of me whatever you please; it's no sweat off my back.

Originally posted by ExCommando
He should have been wearing a helmet.

I totally disagree with this. In South Carolina, motorcyclists have the option to wear a helmet and those who don't are just as careful, or even more so, than those who do chose to wear helmets. Helmets are nothing more than a false security for the cyclist.

People die everyday. He just happened to die for something he believed in.

Overeaters, smokers and alcoholics also die everyday for something they believe in., Are you going to say they can't eat, drink or smoke what they want?

Sounds to me you agree with BIG government.