Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:46:14 -0400
Reply-To: Ron Tipton <uther@DRAGONHOME.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Ron Tipton <uther@DRAGONHOME.ORG>
Subject: Re: Helmet laws
In-Reply-To: Message from Timothy Lee Harrison <tim@HARRISONLAND.CO.UK> of
"Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:35:58 BST."
<200309251435.58803.tim@harrisonland.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Tim,
> Incidentally, you snipped the attribution from your post, and I can't
> remember whose the post was you quoted. Anyway...
So I did. It looks like my mail software doesn't include the attribution
on these e-mails. I wonder why? I suspect it has something to do with
the fact that these are from a discussion listserver and not from an
individual, as I know that usually the attribution line is there... I'll
create one from now on.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:35:58, Timothy Lee Harrison <tim@HARRISONLAND.CO.UK>
wrote:
> You know that thing... erm... what do they call it? Oh, yes: democracy.
> It's the people that decide who governs them, isn't it?
Wellll, actually in the US of A we have a representative democracy or
republic. The people's representatives decide on the laws, not the people.
> Excuse my sarcasm,
> but I can't resist when the examples you quote are so ridiculous and borne
> by paranoia.
The examples I give are not in the least ridiculous. They are unpleasant.
Once a government is given power by an argument, it is not in the least
ridiculous to expect it to use that same argument to obtain additional
power. There have been serious suggestions in this country that all cars
without air bags should be eliminated. The justification is the same one
used for requiring the use if helmets and seat belts.
I have read at least one group using that same argument to propose making
eating meat illegal. More than one government has limited the amount of
space any individual could use for housing "for the greater good."
> I'll paraphrase what I wrote in the original thread:
> I simply don't buy this "personal liberties" argument. Along with personal
> liberties and freedoms come personal responsibilities. If you want the
> full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt (Vanagon content,
> please note) you should have it. Just also accept the personal
> responsibily for your medical bill when you have an accident.
I do. As does everyone else in the US of A. We do not have government
paid medical care.
> The fact is that most people would struggle to foot a bill running into
> hundreds of thousands, so they really don't have a choice. The "personal
> liberty" argument is void if for that reason only because we wouldn't let
> our fellow members of society go without treatment so desperatly needed.
Maybe you wouldn't, maybe we shouldn't, but the face is we (in the US of A)
do. And I also totally reject the argument that if anyone who accepts help
must give up freedom.
> However, if our society will foot the bill for you, i.e. take
> responsibility for you, it's not unreasonable to a expect society to set
> out a few ground rules - and it is "society" which pays, not "the
> government".
No, in my case it's me or my private insurance - which I pay for to the
tune of $926/month. In your case it is the government health care.
Society pays in either case as we are all part of society.
> I'm sure those using this "personal liberties" argument would
> have no problems accepting medical treatment that they couldn't pay for
> themselves, so why is it such an issue to have conditions attached?
If, by horrid circumstances, I were forced into living in a homeless
shelter I would accept it. That doesn't mean I accept the right of the
government to decide what size of house I must live in, or how I must
invest my money to keep me from such a state.
Your argument of "society pays so there must be conditions attached" is
the totalitarian argument. It allows the government to do anything. IE:
Society pays for the police so that we can be protected from criminals.
You accept that protection.
You must, therefore, abide by the actions the police say they need in
order to do their jobs.
This includes tapping your phone, holding you for however long they deem
necessary for questioning, etc.
> This is not a personal attack, I just *really* get fed up with these vague
> arguments that people like to quote in discussion which, in reality, they
> negate by acceptance of the provisions that the society they live in
> offer. If we're talking about our moral or social priciples, let's at
> least be consistent about it.
I have spent years reading and thinking about my political positions and
I assure you they are anything but vague. You say that my arguments are
"negate(ed) by acceptance of the provisions that the society they live in".
I do not accept that argument at all. The society I live in once allowed
slavery, did not allow women to vote, allowed fathers to kill their "unruly
child", made being a Quaker a hanging office, did allow the consumption of
alcohol. I reject all of those and have worked to change a number of other
provisions that society imposed. I do not believe in meekly accepting the
rules that my government imposes.
> We're not talking about something stupid like a government that wants to
> forbid red shirts. We're talking about minimising the cost to society
> which is caused by accidents exacerbated by individual choices. I don't
> think it's unreasonable for those of us who pay for the damage to have a
> say in damage limitation. *That* is what being responsible is about.
I'm talking about government limiting my freedom. I reject that limitation
except in extreme cases. I see no evidence that this is an extreme case, or
even an example of major spending. I wonder how much of the total expenses
of the government on medical care goes to motorcycle riders who are injured
because they were not wearing helmets? I wonder how much money is saved by
motorcyclist who avoid accidents because they can hear or see better without
a helmet? I wonder if any real scientific studies have been done?
r
