click it or ticket

Is there really any functional difference between "License and registration please" and "Papers please"? I dislike seat-belt laws, traffic laws in general, really. Actually, I dislike all laws that define crimes without victims -- they are just excuses for police to justify their existence and play soldiers.

I always wear my seatbelt, I think it's a great idea, and I encourage everyone to do the same, but I don't need the government telling me to do it under threat of force.

They're only doing checkpoints now because people are driving less and slower because of the price of gas. So, there are less opportunities to write traffic tickets. Thus, ticket revenue is down. The whole criminal justice system depends on a certain amount of people misbehaving on a regular basis in order to sustain itself.

 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Laws are all well and good, but it takes more than legalese to overcome the stupid, the lazy and the apathetic.

 

maybe you should start running around with out clothes and take LOTS of pics for us *snickers*

 

Heya mig

 

hehe. I don't like it when the police are used as tax collectors. Something we suffer from pretty heavily here in Manitoba. Stop crime! Who cares if some guy isn't wearing a seat belt.

 

heya yourself Biscotti *hugs*

 

Actually, my state (AL) has been doing checkpoints for years...well before the gas price ever rose significantly.

 

Well, if people wore their seatbelts, maybe they wouldn't have these laws and checkpoints. Think about it.

When people come to visit us, the first thing I do is thump them for not putting a seatbelt on in our car. I don't go anywhere until those seatbelts are clipped up.

Question: Would you let your children ride without a seatbelt? If not, why should you?

 

I'm with you, Jupe. I don't ever drive w/o a seatbelt, nor do I let anyone ride in my vehicle without wearing one. There really aren't any valid excuses for not wearing them. Uncomfortable? They make stuff to alleviate any complaints you could possibly imagine. A hassle? Seriously.. it takes 2 seconds to buckle up.

The only people I know who don't wear them say that they don't wear them as a form of "rebellion against the government." (Yes, that's actually been said to me.) That's just plain dumb.

 

NY has done checkpoints for as long as I can remember as well -- they just do them more frequently, and in places they haven't before, now that ticket revenue is down. Doesn't mean it's a good thing -- during the Cold War, regular Russian folks used to dream of coming here, because you could travel across the country without being asked for your papers. Now it's the opposite.

The country really started to close up in the 1980's, when Reagan's drug war really got going. Before that, three percent of the population was addicted to drugs. Twenty-five years and who knows how many billions of dollars later, Americans are paranoid and turned against eachother, and... three percent of the population is addicted to drugs. I'm not advocating drug use, and even if they were decriminalized today, I wouldn't use them, I just think that Reagan's policies ruined the openness and freedom that made this country great. However, I digress.

 

You're probably right -- lawmakers generally make laws in response to a perceived crisis which they think requires them to take action. If everyone were wearing their seatbelts, it wouldn't have occurred to them that a law was necessary.

Let me illustrate my point here with a slightly different example. Here, it is illegal to be in possession of a gambling device. In the past, people have been prosecuted under this law, for being in possession of money, as money can be used to gamble. Vagrancy is also a crime here, and one of the various ways one can fit the definition of vagrancy is to not be in possession of money. So, right there, the government has the ability to prosecute whoever they want to, because everyone is violating the law all of the time. There are thousands of laws on the books like this -- the United States has more laws than the rest of the world combined, and hundreds of pages are added to the legal code every day. The natural outgrowth of this system is selective enforcement, which is alive and well here -- about one percent of the population is in prison at any given time, which is a much higher percentage than in any other country in the world. Our prisoners overwhelmingly come from lower socioeconomic classes. Sixty percent of them are imprisoned for victimless crimes. However, I would argue that the other forty percent certainly belong where they are.

This is why I am opposed to seat-belt laws, and all laws which create victimless crimes -- no government can be trusted with that level of power over its citizens and still maintain a free country.

I do exactly the same thing. I'll be honest, I mostly do it to satisfy the law, but I would likely still do it if the law were not in force, because when I am driving a car, I am responsible for my passengers.

Just the other day, I was attempting to teach a friend's son dirty words, so my views on appropriate actions to take as a parent should probably not be taken as authoritative. However, I believe that adults should be given the freedom to make their own decisions, and the responsibility for any consequences of those decisions.

 

Responsibility...no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. So government makes laws to make someone responsible.
I have no agruement with the use of seatbelts. I use mine as well. If people choose not too, who cares. It's their life they are risking.
Now smoking....what do you do about a parent that smokes in the care with their kids? How far do you dip into the civil liberties of individuals? As the kid of a parent that did smoke when I was around, you kinda hooped.
Such is life. Though I don't agree with it, I wouldn't want to see a law passed that will see fines and/or kids being taken away from their homes because of smoking in their presence.
Where do you draw the line?

 

That's an interesting point, Rax. I think that I would argue that the line could be drawn based on this reasoning: Freedom, in the context of living in a society, implies the responsibility to accord the same freedoms you enjoy to the others with whom you share the society. Or, to put it more simply, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

From this perspective, if we accept that people have the freedom to smoke or not to smoke, at their option, then we must accept that their children also have the freedom to smoke or not, at their option. So, someone smoking in an enclosed space in the presence of their children removes that freedom from them (since the children have no choice but to inhale the smoke), and therefore is a violation of their children's freedom.

In my opinion, by extension of the reasoning above, this could justly be construed as a violent crime. No fines or child-protective-services visits. Jail time for the parents, though these days violent crimes against children are heading towards the death penalty.

I don't think I want to see such drastic legal penalties for smoking around your children, though -- it seems, from a practical perspective, that this would cause many more problems than it solves. Though, from another perspective, if we accept that it is legal to victimize children in certain ways, can it then be argued that it is also legal in other ways? Is it then legal to beat one's children, for example?

A very interesting discussion.

 

Every once in a while, A kid without proper direction needs a good smack. I know I certainly did. But I was a little bugger, left to his own devices for the most part.
My viewpoints are pretty draconian in some ways. I like practical and reasonable solutions. Parents in jail for smokin around kids will never happen. The solution is worse then the problem. I'm sure you agree symen.
Law makers can't cover all the bases. I don't want them too.
I want bikini clad barrista's to serve me coffee. Prostitution used to be an accepted form of work supported by the clergy. I'd like to see that returned as well
I don't know where I'm going with this. LOL.
Anyway, the bottomline for me is, stop making laws to cover my stupidity and social downfalls. If your lucky enough to have parents that feel their responsiblity to their kids goes beyond food and shelter. lucky you
It's not governments responsiblity to make sure that your parents are not smoking in the house/car.

 

is it that noone wants to take responsibility or is it that noone wants to be treated as a criminal for behaving as a normal human being?

And the laws are to bring us to a level that is above normal and human for the sake of saving lives -a worthy cause, the greater good that comes before freedom sometimes.

Rax, let me know whenever you need a good smack! ~

Jupe, you're stronger than me. If it weren't for the laws, I would be unable to defend my desire to seatbelt the world and I would fold.

Hamma, I have regrets about allowing my kids to play online because I didn't protect them well enough against potential predators. I think the world of CDL and there is protection that comes from being surrounded by family here, but I didn't do enough. I hope there was no harm, but that will probably not really come to light for many years if there was. It's on my mind. I suffered a lot. It's not realistic to believe my kids were exempt.

symen, your stats on drug addiction...do you mean proven physical addiction? or normal avoidant behavior -a healthy psychological response to overwhelming conditions of life? There is a horrifying discrepancy. BTW, symen, I love you. You're perfect. never change. Except you can change yoru mind sometimes....but i love your mind so don't do it that much.

Mig, I'll PM you the pics...ok, dangit. I don't have any pics but I had you scared about nekkid pics, right?


Throney, maybe they want you seatbelted to the car you were in so they can tell where you flew from on spagetti junction!

scotty, I agree.