How seat belts made a mockery of the Constitution

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Driving laws are not a right, and therefore can be subject to change at any time.

Driving is a priveledge. In order to drive, you need to follow the rules of the road.

You voluntarily accept the rules of driving by getting a drivers' license, and if you don't like the rules, you can choose not to drive.


A license grants permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Did you know that until several years ago it was perfectly legal for an unlicensed farm boy to drive his father's tractor down a paved highway? As far as I know they managed to follow the rules of the road without a scrap of paper in their pockets to keep them from going through the windshield. Oh, wait.

Licensing is a permission tax and you must follow a continually growing body of rules that further limit that permission or you'll be fined. Big time. They couldn't care less how you die, they just want your money before you croak and they want control over your every move until you do.




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaanny
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car

I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.

So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.


fine...and if...any public money is used to cover the losses to you or anyone else you hurt or kill or property that is damaged, you and your family will be monetarily responsible for however long it takes in your lifetime and theirs.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Motorhead
 


In regards to your post, and a few other's where they lamblast the Op....
If people want to go through a windshield, or practice personal responsibility and buckle up, then that should be their freedom of choice.

If you want to bring in the costs incurred from their stupidity, then why stop there?
What about the costs incurred I have to pay through medical insurance, because of the foods people eat or their poor lifestyles etc.
Should the government step in, anytime, it is costing me and others money?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by babybunnies
Driving laws are not a right, and therefore can be subject to change at any time.

Driving is a priveledge. In order to drive, you need to follow the rules of the road.

You voluntarily accept the rules of driving by getting a drivers' license, and if you don't like the rules, you can choose not to drive.


A license grants permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Did you know that until several years ago it was perfectly legal for an unlicensed farm boy to drive his father's tractor down a paved highway? As far as I know they managed to follow the rules of the road without a scrap of paper in their pockets to keep them from going through the windshield. Oh, wait.

Licensing is a permission tax and you must follow a continually growing body of rules that further limit that permission or you'll be fined. Big time. They couldn't care less how you die, they just want your money before you croak and they want control over your every move until you do.


licensing was instituted to protect people from other people....if you drive a car, a license means that someone else had actually checked to see if you know how to drive around others safely...if you are an electrician, a license means someone checked to see that you know enough so that you don't burn a house down, if you build a house, a license means you have knowledge on how to build it safely, so it does not collapse on the occupants...etc....



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by Motorhead
 


In regards to your post, and a few other's where they lamblast the Op....
If people want to go through a windshield, or practice personal responsibility and buckle up, then that should be their freedom of choice.

If you want to bring in the costs incurred from their stupidity, then why stop there?
What about the costs incurred I have to pay through medical insurance, because of the foods people eat or their poor lifestyles etc.
Should the government step in, anytime, it is costing me and others money?








then i guess you want the government to let people die, if saving them costs you money...you can always move to a third-world country where that happens on a regular basis...sudan, and cambodia are 2 countries that you would be happy living in.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Your intellect should dictate your actions: For example wearing a seat belt when driving a vehicle.

I don't know if terms like "Medical insurance" ring any bell, no ?

So just because you think it's a good idea not to wear a seat belt while driving, I should be forced to pay more and more insurance fees each month because of the morons not wanting to wear a seat belt, thus suffering more severe ( and therewith costly ) injuries ?

Your OP reveals a lot about your state of mind. Please don't wear a seatbelt and drive against a tree. Win win situation for you and the whole society. Thank you.



Maybe it should be illegal to gain more than 10% body fat then...that would lower healthcare costs too. In over half of the states you can ride a motor cycle without a helmet....

The bottom line is this is an avenue to get anyone they want into the system, and once you are in the system you are screwed. If you wear your seat belt 100% of the time they will have another law that will get you. How about your kid riding his bike without a helmet and you are inside cooking dinner?

The system equals control and once they got you in it they own you in ways that you can never get out of it such as long time lost of driving privileges, endless appointments that effect your ability to work and if you miss one it gives them further control to do more that puts you into an endless loop that you can never get out of, fines that you cannot pay...another endless loop, threat or actual lose of custody for your children...big control here.

So in the end you lose your job, financial ruin, lose your family, go to jail.... This is all fine when you picture the redneck driving 90 miles an hour with his kids in the bed of his truck and gets caught over and over, but how about a situation where there are 100s of laws of control, and I just do not like you, and so every time I see you break one I call the police anonymously...

Or you are a pain in the ass to your local government because they are not doing the job they said they would do and they want to shut you up by putting you in a situation of control.... 40,000 new laws went into effect in 2012...does this mean we didn't have enough before?



edit on 4-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



licensing was instituted to protect people from other people....if you drive a car, a license means that someone else had actually checked to see if you know how to drive around others safely...if you are an electrician, a license means someone checked to see that you know enough so that you don't burn a house down, if you build a house, a license means you have knowledge on how to build it safely, so it does not collapse on the occupants...etc....


A license in no way guarantees competence. Take licensed doctors for instance, who are responsible for somewhere around 350,000 deaths a year due to INcomptence and negligence. Licensing nurses in no way guarantees competent compassionate care, either. Licensing teachers doesn't guarantee the kids will come away knowing their heads from a hole in the ground. And it doesn't even guarantee the teacher won't be diddling his/her students in the coat room.

The twin towers were built by licensed architects and contractors who swore they couldn't be brought down, even if hit by 737s.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   


A license grants permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal.


This is literally correct, while the rest of its attendant implications are reaching a bit...

As found here, "license" is legally defined as:

"The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct."

In other words, a "license" is generally permission to engage in an activity which has the potential to cause others "harm" -- an unintentionally tortious, but otherwise illegal act because of its potential for "harm" (in 'whatever form'). And, yes...

"Licenses are an important and ubiquitous feature of contemporary society. Federal, state, and local governments rely on licensing to control a broad range of human activity, from commercial and professional to dangerous and environmental." (italics added)

...for that, afterall, is one of the principal reasons that "Governments are instituted among Men", to proscribe ("control") harmful activities and prescribe the punishments (or requirements) for engaging in them... or, turned the other way, "to secure the rights" of those who would be harmed.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pendracon
 



In other words, a "license" is generally permission to engage in an activity which has the potential to cause others "harm" -- an unintentionally tortious, but otherwise illegal act because of its potential for "harm" (in 'whatever form'). And, yes...


Remember the Hippocratic oath doctors used to take? The one that goes, "first of all, do no harm"? They took that part out the oath, but they still license doctors who have greater potential to do harm WITH that license than some dude driving down the street without a seat belt ~ or a license.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx


then i guess you want the government to let people die


HMMmm Let people die.... I think everyone dies sooner or later... is it the Government's job to have everyone live to 100? I don't think even wrapping people into a cocoon of regulations and laws will keep people from dying.

You know it is kind of a far left view point that people are too stupid to manage their own lives and so they need the government to control everything....

I'm more a Liberal in I think people can manage their own lives just fine thank you... Sometimes you just need to let Darwin Theory run its course.


edit on 4-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I'm not sure what your point is, but the hippocratic oath is about practicing medicine ethically, not "without harm". When read in light of the rest of the original oath, "do no harm" clearly means "do no intentional harm" -- practicing medicine is afterall, in its nature, "doing harm", e.g.: puncturing with needles, cutting with scalpels, "treating" with pharmaceuticals, freezing with stethoscopes (I digress
). Modern doctors have plenty of laws reminding them that (like the rest of us), they, too, are prohibited from "doing (tortious) harm". This, however, does not eliminate one's potential for it, anymore than being "licensed" does so. A license does not guarantee competent action, but some licenses imply a demonstrated competence under normal circumstances.

Intoxicated, but licensed, drivers who kill others in collisions have, at some time, demonstrated the "prescribed" competence to be licensed, though at the time of collision they were certainly not acting competently ("ethically"?). This, however, is not quite the same since one does (should) not demonstrate their competence for a driver license while intoxicated. I think it's safe to presume that, were those drivers not intoxicated, they would not have intentionally rammed their vehicle into another. To be fair, when a doctor acts "unethically", its likely that only "one" person is being directly harmed, whereas for that driver...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
It seems to be an issue about saving lives vs freedom of choice, does it not?
Perhaps, you would agree that we should have let the British win during the civil war, because those that died for our freedoms, would have lived instead then. It would be more important had they lived, correct?



Originally posted by jimmyx
then i guess you want the government to let people die, if saving them costs you money...you can always move to a third-world country where that happens on a regular basis...sudan, and cambodia are 2 countries that you would be happy living in.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
It seems to be an issue about saving lives vs freedom of choice, does it not?


"Freedom of choice" is about the freedom to make choices which do not endanger lives, or otherwise interfere with their enjoyment of the same freedom. I don't see how that has anything to do with "being required to wear a seat belt (or do/not do other things while "driving" on public roads), [somehow] destroying the Constitution".



Perhaps, you would agree that we should have let the British win during the civil war, because those that died for our freedoms, would have lived instead then. It would be more important had they lived, correct?


I think you mean the (American) Revolutionary War. I'm no expert, but I don't think the British were participating combatants during the (American) Civil War. In any case, I agree that we are better off for not having let the British win either one.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pendracon
reply to post by frazzle
 


I'm not sure what your point is, but the hippocratic oath is about practicing medicine ethically, not "without harm". When read in light of the rest of the original oath, "do no harm" clearly means "do no intentional harm" -- practicing medicine is afterall, in its nature, "doing harm", e.g.: puncturing with needles, cutting with scalpels, "treating" with pharmaceuticals, freezing with stethoscopes (I digress
). Modern doctors have plenty of laws reminding them that (like the rest of us), they, too, are prohibited from "doing (tortious) harm". This, however, does not eliminate one's potential for it, anymore than being "licensed" does so. A license does not guarantee competent action, but some licenses imply a demonstrated competence under normal circumstances.

Intoxicated, but licensed, drivers who kill others in collisions have, at some time, demonstrated the "prescribed" competence to be licensed, though at the time of collision they were certainly not acting competently ("ethically"?). This, however, is not quite the same since one does (should) not demonstrate their competence for a driver license while intoxicated. I think it's safe to presume that, were those drivers not intoxicated, they would not have intentionally rammed their vehicle into another. To be fair, when a doctor acts "unethically", its likely that only "one" person is being directly harmed, whereas for that driver...



Lessee

• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery
• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals
• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs
www.health-care-reform.net...

But of course none of those deaths were intentional. Maybe that's why medical professionals are just licensed to practice medicine.

Now lets compare these totals (which are conservative) with annual US motor vehicle fatalities ~ oh wait, I can't even find the total, even for DUI. Now why on earth would those totals be so hard to find. Maybe you'll have more luck with it. (ETA I found the number, its about 34,000 per year.)

When the people finally accept that there are no guarantees in life and stop demanding them from bureaucrats who CAN not and WILL not gurantee them anything remotely resembling safety from all harm, maybe they'll get over the idea we all still need nannies and they'll grow up. This is the real world not a playpen.
edit on 4-8-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by Zaanny
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car

I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.

So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.


And if your choices lead to other people being injured or even killed?


I said I was driving alone....

The only person that would be killed would be me.

Unless you think my body flying through the air can kill someone inside another car.

Freakin liberals
edit on 4-8-2012 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Zaanny
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car

I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.

So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.


fine...and if...any public money is used to cover the losses to you or anyone else you hurt or kill or property that is damaged, you and your family will be monetarily responsible for however long it takes in your lifetime and theirs.


Thats why I pay for insurance...
edit on 4-8-2012 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pendracon
 
after absorbing your link and realizing that it's mostly inapplicable to the topic at hand, the last line reverberated as a point that matters.

the POINT i addressed, which wasn't about mails, was about your posted response to a question posed by another poster which read ...

What gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that?

to which you responded ...

In this case, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, also known as the "Postal clause". It's that which gives the government the power to maintain the US highway and interstate systems (though the commerce clause also has a lot to do with the latter), along with all the regulatory weight that comes with it. It's what your "road taxes" go towards (and why the "postal service" effectively funds itself) -- despite Warr-bama wanting you to believe it was really to help you build your business (*ahem*).
then you affirmed this ridiculous statement with ... caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

the point is and was, NO article of the Constitution ... "gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that?"
and THAT was the point of our conversation.
agree or disagree ??

nice try at deflection but i do remeber the topic, do you?
we are discussing the UnConstitutional mandate or unlawful requirements promoted to engage in road usage and the licensing scheme in which citizens are fraudulently forced to participate.

psssst ... we aren't discussing government functionality, we are discussing government demands which are completely unreasonable and UnConstitutional.
(both safety belts & licensing)

currently, State and Federal USE of the roads has -0- impact on my use of the same roads (except private ones)
under certain states of emergency, the State/Fed use takes priority but that still doesn't deprive me or anyone of their right to travel upon those roadways at will.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Lessee

• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery
• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals
• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs
www.health-care-reform.net...

But of course none of those deaths were intentional. Maybe that's why medical professionals are just licensed to practice medicine.


That is correct, along with why they must also carry hefty "malpractice" insurance (the cost of which, of course, is passed on, but that's not really the point). Hmmm... "225,000 Americans per year died as a result of their medical treatments" certainly is a lot. However, its the entire "medical system" that's blamed for them, not just doctors (despite the sensationalist title). Still, I don't see what this has to do with driving licenses and being required to wear seat belts.



Now lets compare these totals (which are conservative) with annual US motor vehicle fatalities ~ oh wait, I can't even find the total, even for DUI. Now why on earth would those totals be so hard to find. Maybe you'll have more luck with it. (ETA I found the number, its about 34,000 per year.)


Um, try searching Google for "driving fatality statistics". And, yep, about 34,000 is the number of deaths per year attributed to auto accidents. Though, is this really what we're focusing on, the number of "deaths" attributed to each? Because, "harm" in this context means not just "death", and in the case of driving, it also happens to include property damage. Hmm... how many "property damage" settlements are there against doctors each year, then?
(Heck, this doesn't even have to be limited you to just those related to their medical practice.)

Ok, ok... if considering only "harm to a persons body" and looking at "injuries caused by" the activity then, according to this site, that number is much higher:

"On an average, there are more than 6 million car accidents on the roads of the US, annually.

More than 3 million people get injured due to car accidents, with more than 2 million of these injuries being permanent."

I don't know where their statistics come from but I see no reason to assume them false. So, where's the statistics for the number of accidental "injuries" caused by doctors? How do you qualify them? If by annual "malpractice suits", then the number does not go up very much from your death count, at least according to this report. Hmm, dead or permanently maimed... there's your choice. At least, when I visit my doctor (whom I personally know), I know the odds are more in favor of me leaving his office "unharmed". I can't say the same for whenever I get in my car to go somewhere, and remain under constant threat from the countless faceless others driving around in their vehicles.

Btw, I do not support or want the government's overreach into any aspect of my life (or yours) -- if that's what you equate with any of this then you are "dead" wrong. I do, however, accept the fact that not everything in my life rests squarely within my own private domain and, therefore, I must remain cognizant of the fact that my actions could but must not negatively impact others -- or, in legal terminology, "know the laws that apply" to my actions, regardless of how inconvenient those laws may be or unlikely I am to act harmfully, in the first place.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


I wholeheartedly agree with you! I still cannot fathom why the officer who pulled me over for no seat belt...alone on my way to pick up my children from school, driving the speed limit of 35 mph, was so angry at me. I was polite and gave him my credentials as asked to, yet he was not satisfied with my answer for not wearing a seat belt. I told him I just don't like wearing them unless there are others in the car, as I feel too confined. Well he preceded to speak to me as if I had committed a worser offense such as...say driving 90 mph. My point is to everyone I tell this too is if I am ALONE in my car, who am I hurting? My choice for myself I say! So if I had my seatbelt on instead, would that really stop me from harming others in an accident if my car got hit or hit someone elses car? I would love to see statistics for that. And I guess I just happened to get a very angry cop who blew everything out of proportion. See this is the problem in our great country...the things that REALLY matter are not taken seriously enough, and the more trivial things become more predominant as they shouldn't be.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pendracon
 



Ok, ok... if considering only "harm to a persons body" and looking at "injuries caused by" the activity then, according to this site, that number is much higher:

"On an average, there are more than 6 million car accidents on the roads of the US, annually.

More than 3 million people get injured due to car accidents, with more than 2 million of these injuries being permanent."


I suppose the next quesion would be, how many of these injured/dead people were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. I suspect that would be most of them, even the dead ones.


I don't know where their statistics come from but I see no reason to assume them false. So, where's the statistics for the number of accidental "injuries" caused by doctors? How do you qualify them? If by annual "malpractice suits", then the number does not go up very much from your death count, at least according to this report. Hmm, dead or permanently maimed... there's your choice. At least, when I visit my doctor (whom I personally know), I know the odds are more in favor of me leaving his office "unharmed". I can't say the same for whenever I get in my car to go somewhere, and remain under constant threat from the countless faceless others driving around in their vehicles.


The true number of medical accidents cannot be qualified because of the fact that many injuries and deaths are not recognised as malpractice or negligence by the patients or their families who are told it was some other cause. But the CDC did report in 2009 that prescription drug deaths alone outnumbered traffic fatalities in the US.

You feel confident about your doctor and that's good, but do you know anything about the drugs he prescribes for you? More to the point, does HE know the possible side effects and contraindications of the drugs he prescribes for you? Many doctors just take the word of the pharma salesperson who's paid on commission.


I do, however, accept the fact that not everything in my life rests squarely within my own private domain and, therefore, I must remain cognizant of the fact that my actions could but must not negatively impact others -- or, in legal terminology, "know the laws that apply" to my actions, regardless of how inconvenient those laws may be or unlikely I am to act harmfully, in the first place.


Are you saying that you couldn't be trusted to act sensibly or responsibly without government dogging you?

I'm sorry, but you only think you know the laws. How many of the 20,000 laws that went into effect just this year alone have you read and studied and understood? Last year's? Or the years before that?

Here's a little history on licensing drivers. en.wikipedia.org...'s_license





top topics
 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join