Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 07:23pm PT
|
I'll say this one last time, for the skimmers and the obtuse:
I'm NOT anti-seatbelt. I think everyone SHOULD wear one, every time they get in the car. Everyone. Everytime. Every Car.
And frankly, stories about a seatbelt saving your life are interesting, BUT IRRELEVANT.
We're not debating about whether a seatbelt can save a life.
I give it to you. It can. It saved yours. It has saved mine. Okay.
But that's not what we're debating, so move on to the real question: should the gov't enforce seatbelting?
It's just not the place of the government to enforce that. In fact, technically, the gov't doesn't have the authority to do so, per the constitution and bill of rights, as madbolter laid out.
That's like saying, well, I had a locator beacon on Mt Hood and it saved my life this one time.
Therefore, every climber should be forced - by the government - to wear one on every climb, hike, walk, and drive up to Timberline Lodge.
The logic doesn't add up, my well-meaning, though short-sighted friends.
Take care of kids? Yes.
Value them over adults? No.
Don't try and sway an argument by saying, "but it's for the kids..."
I value both, and won't be irrationally swayed by the kid side of it. I don't think giving up personal freedom will make their lives better in the long run - what will they have inherited when they grow up?
Can you draw the line at which we no longer care *as much* that they die? How old/young do you have to be?
-A
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 07:30pm PT
|
I don't think you quite grasp the whole cost/risk/potential harm equation.
It is cheap and it is easy to use seat belts. Your liberty is barely infringed upon.
You can make the slippery slope argument all you want, but the only other option you present is anarchy. Waste of time.
|
|
Beavis Von Goatturds
Ice climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 07:45pm PT
|
Oooooooooooooooooooooh, Crowley - that's creepey!
But really, what a load of rubbish. Put it on you wankers, or else this Scotsman is coming for you!
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 07:53pm PT
|
The Gov. must be made to protect everyone from all danger! It is important.
I guess that means taking away cars or else making it illegal to walk because lots of people die every year from rossing the street while the sign says "walk."
Maybe crashing and hitting people should be illegal instead of making it safe to get hit or to hit something. Maybe people who drive drunk should get executed. Then 10,000 people a year might stay alive.
Seat belt laws are stupid. They just make the rule book thicker so the people who are paid to carry it around get paid more.
Dave
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 08:04pm PT
|
Yes, DMT - I have lot's more questions.
Like, uh, what??
Caughtinside: "Your liberty is barely infringed upon."
How much is too much?
It's a "gateway" liberty infringement.
That's one of the major reasons I'm opposed to it.
Crowley: Kindly leave, please. Thanks.
But since I can't help myself, I'll say that the distinction matters little. State or national, it's still gov't, and against what the founders of the country had in mind.
-A
|
|
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2007 - 08:23pm PT
|
Nobody has yet pulled up my favorite flawed retort:
"If you hit someone, and they are not wearing a seatbelt, you will be scarred for life. Everyone else should be required to wear one so as not to force you else to have nightmares and go to therapy if you hit them."
Another point, who in the car should be ticketed if a competent adult passenger is not wearing their seatbelt? In many places it is the driver, but I honestly don't know any of the state by state laws. I believe that's about like throwing the parents in jail if their 25 year old son robs a bank.
HL&S
|
|
Darnell
Big Wall climber
Chicago
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 - 10:16pm PT
|
Thank you big brother for saving me from myself
|
|
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 23, 2007 - 01:24am PT
|
Wow. Bumped to page three... WTF?!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 01:49am PT
|
It was a nice day on the rock, dancing up the Royal Arches, talking to the other teams, and meeting people from far away on a once in a lifetime holiday made me feel thankful that I am able to drive up in the morning, climb a classic route and return home.
madbolter1, I cannot disagree with you more about your learned pronouncements regarding being an "American." But where to start, I thought I did when chiding you about balance. The balance between individual and societal needs is explicit in the Constitution. It is a document which defines the constitution of a government, a government which governs over the people. While explicit individual rights are defined in that document, the document itself describes the process by which a society, "the society" will be run... the preamble is all about "us", not "me"
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.
The "blessings of liberty" are one out of six reasons given in the preamble for writing the thing. The others are interesting:
1) form a more perfect union
2) establish justice
3) insure domestic tranquility
4) provide for the common defense
5) promote the general welfare
6) secure the blessings of liberty
Interesting, item 5) could sound a lot like "seat belt laws" since that does promote the general welfare... but my objection to your argument is deeper.
The Constitution is a remarkable document because it actually describes a process, the process of governing. A set of principals are set down, and the "roles, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities" for the various parts of government defined, and the process by which they all interact is established. From this starting point, the government then evolves.
Yes, there are times when one branch oversteps it's bounds, but the checks and balances put in place can correct such an event. The fact that The People are a part of the political process also affects the course of the government, as it is supposed to be, but there are checks on majority rule.
To my mind, The Constitution is not so much an instruction manual as it is a first chapter of a long book still being written.
Now being an American does mean believing in the various philosophical foundations of the nation. Unfortunately we don't teach this very well in school, ironic as the establishment of mandatory education supported by the (local) government was done in recognition of the need for the electorate to be educated.
However, while Americans believe in individual liberties, they also believe in civic responsibilities. The very first people to utter words in defense of individual liberty fought a war, together, to establish the nation. They did this in society, not as individuals. I do not think that the suspension of their individual liberties as members of the Continental Army was much of an issue with them... they fought and died to establish those items above "to ourselves and our posterity."
I do believe in liberty, but I also believe the Constitution is not written solely to preserve this idea above all others. It seeks to establish a balance and a process of equilibrium between the society and individuals. I see it as a Diest might see the establishment of the universe by a creator, who "wound it up" and "let it go", following established natural laws, but having no role once it was "released."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 07:46am PT
|
Hi, Ed. Glad you had a nice day climbing. And your post was much better this time. No quickie “bullshit” lines and so forth. Here you have something substantial to respond to. Thank you for that. Indeed a good post.
Now, the heart of your present argument consists of two things. First, you note that “promote the general welfare” could encompass things like seat belt laws. So, you suggest that the Constitution was written to expressly make room for such laws. Second, you emphasize the “growing” and “evolving” nature of the “process” of governing as established by the Constitution. You summarize this idea when you say that the Constitution does not elevate liberty above a number of other important values. I think I’m getting your points correctly, but please correct me if I’m missing your argument.
Let’s start with the first point. What does “promote the general welfare” mean, and what was the intention of the Framers?
Your rather sweeping notion of “promotion” initially seems supported by select passages from the Federalist Papers. For example, Madison wrote in #45: “Is it too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.”
Particularly the line, “...the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued...,” seems to support your case. Promoting the “real welfare” seems to suggest that everything from seatbelt laws to nationalized (socialized) medicine is consistent with this sort of “promoting.”
However, people considering ratification of the Constitution were justifiably afraid of the VERY construction you have placed on these general principles, and, in Federalist #41, Madison clarifies the verbiage (sorry for the long quotation; it can’t be helped): “Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence [sic] and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence [sic] or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury; or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.’ But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied by signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”
I know the passage is lengthy, but please read it carefully. Notice how often Madison defends and clarifies the particular verbiage, “general welfare,” as this was a huge sticking point for many people. The KEY point in the above passage is that Madison does NOT treat “promote the general welfare” as you suggest at all. It is not some open-ended principle that can justify any sort of abuse of liberty. He even cites “forms of conveyances” as an example of the sort of fear people had regarding governmental intervention into their lives and choices, yet Madison claims that such a fear is without merit because NO SUCH construction can be implied from the phrase “general welfare.” He particularly notes that the various enumerations of powers constrain the exercise of governmental power such that such a construction of the phrase is not possible.
This is a critical passage for our present debate, because here Madison actually addresses what in our present terms would amount to what sort of car you drive. Yet, how much does the government NOW intervene in what sort of car you drive?!? Madison assures the fearful that “general welfare” does NOT mean that the government can invade your life in just whatever way it sees fit to promote its (or even a present majority of people’s) idea of what your “general welfare” is! Yet, this is PRECISELY what a seat belt law does!
I note again, as Madison says, the “general welfare” principle is defined and constrained by the enumeration of powers that follows in the rest of the Constitution. So, by treating that one phrase as you are, and speculating about what it MIGHT encompass, you are acting in the VERY way people originally feared, such fears Madison sought to alleviate BY pointing to the profound limitations placed upon the powers of the government!
I could produce MUCH more documentation from the Federalist Papers, from Supreme Court opinions, etc. If you really want me to, I will be happy to do so in future posts. But in the interests of space now, I will simply state that history absolutely does not support your interpretation of the phrase, “Promote the general welfare.”
Exactly as I did in my previous post, the Framers emphasized over and over the limitations imposed upon governmental interventions into private life! This was always one of the MOST critical concerns in getting the Constitution ratified, and I think it is fair and accurate to say that the Federalists devoted more space to addressing this concern than to any other (second was States’ Rights). Again, history simply does not support your interpretation of that phrase.
But, you do have a response to that claim, and it is exactly the second part of your argument: In effect, the Constitution is a “work in progress,” as you put it, “the first chapter in a long book still being written.” So, however the Framers saw things then, things have changed now, and the Framers WANTED an extremely fluid and flexible document.
Actually, however, this is not at all accurate. The Constitution itself is not the “long book still being written.” The process for making changes to the Constitution is extremely difficult (about as difficult as it practically could be), and such changes have been done quite infrequently in our history. The Framers very intentionally made it difficult to modify the Constitution for the very reason that they did NOT want any temporary majority faction to be able to easily modify the “core will” of the people. Read Federalist #10 for a discussion of “majority faction,” its cure, and they GREAT fear the Founders had of it.
The Framers intended that the “core will” of the people be protected for the very reason that temporary, yet majority, groups of people should NOT be able to easily modify the philosophical principles upon which this nation was founded. So, when you say that the Framers sort of “wound the thing up and let it go” so that “the government then evolves,” you are seriously missing the point. Given even the single passage quoted above from Federalist #41, it is impossible to imagine people ratifying a constitution in the face of a Federalist claim remotely resembling your idea of government: “Ok, guys. Now we all agree on some basic principles. So, let’s sign this thing, turn it loose, and see where it ends up! Should be fun!”
No, the exact opposite is the case. The Constitution was ratified in a climate of fear and trembling, with many drafts and much discussion, most of which regarded the preservation of individual liberty! The Federalists BARELY got the thing ratified, and the very fears I and other libertarians (not the party) have now were foremost in people’s minds then! Jefferson and Madison REPEATEDLY assured the potential constituents that the document contained such explicit verbiage keeping government out of their personal lives that, again, it is fair to say that they devoted more space to this than to any other single issue. So, when you say that “The Constitution was not written to preserve this idea above all others,” that is a very skewed way of casting the situation. Personal liberty was THE subtext of every discussion, and it is the most basic presumption of the entire Constitution.
Of course the Constitution addresses many other issues besides “just” the issue of personal liberties. However, your statement makes it sound like personal liberty was just one of MANY values espoused by the Constitution, when in fact personal liberty was the foremost issue of the entire ratification process (closely followed by States’ rights). It is entirely accurate and fair to recast each of the points of the Preamble like this:
Form a more perfect union (more perfect because liberty is its foremost defining value).
Establish justice (justice repeatedly defined in this document as a function of protecting individual liberties (this point being so well established among Constitutional scholars that it is really beyond debate)).
Insure domestic tranquility (by ensuring that people are able to pursue their own values in the context of respect for their own and OTHERS’ liberties).
Provide for the common defense (defending the core values espoused in the Constitution, of which liberty is foremost).
Promote the general welfare (by ensuring that acts of government are in harmony with the principle of liberty and genuinely in the long-term best interest of the people, AND that such acts are expressly constrained by enumeration of powers clauses!).
Secure the blessings of liberty (the word “secure” being of highest importance).
So far from the “process of governing” being some sort of “evolution” with something like morphological modifications over time, the Framers expressly intended the “core will” of the people as expressed in the Constitution to remain as fixed as possible! Government was carefully and largely constrained, and it was explicitly constrained AWAY from imposing itself into the private lives of individuals. No ratification of anything remotely resembling your open-ended “well, it seems good to us to do this now” sort of “governance” was allowed by the verbiage of the Constitution, and this was the point made repeatedly by the Founders to alleviate the fears of the people on this very subject!
Sadly, the very thing the people feared then has come to pass now. “Promote the general welfare” HAS come to mean that the government imposes itself into our private lives in countless ways to “protect us from ourselves” as much as to “protect us from outside threats.” As you argue, “Promote the general welfare” is now cast as consistent with seat belt laws, despite the fact that the Constitution granted NO POWER to the government to involve itself in any such thing, and Madison uses as close to “seat belt” verbiage as he could dream up at that time when he stated that “forms of conveyance” were NOT in the government’s purview! And when you suggestively interpret that one phrase as you do, thinking that such phrases open the door to an “evolving” government, you literally repudiate the Framer’s clearest statements opposed to such an interpretation, and you fly in the face of the actual history of the ratification process.
Let’s talk cases:
When (not if) nationalized heath care comes into being, we will have given the government the responsibility to oversee and manage the biggest, most untenable bureaucracy in the history of governance. When the government has that responsibility, the invasions of our privacy will be boundless and thorough. By necessity the government will need to know everything about you, and it WILL obtain that knowledge. Furthermore, you WILL see an unprecedented spree of legislation affecting more and more details of how we live our lives. Seat belt laws are nothing compared to what is coming once the government has to foot the bill for keeping you healthy. And, most ironic, in the face of what we will all pay for it (in money and liberty), the quality of our health care will actually decline (regardless of what Moore and other frothing-at-the-mouth liberals tell you). I have many formerly-Canadian friends, and they are without exception agreed that Canadian health care is a joke compared to the U.S. now. Many Canadians that can afford it come down here for procedures that they would wait years to have performed in Canada. Doctors there are woefully underpaid and often incompetent, AND it is almost impossible to sue a doctor in Canada for malpractice--it’s in the government’s interest to swat such suits down with extreme prejudice. In grad school I had several friends from the U.K. Without exception they bashed on their own health care system and praised ours. “Sicko” is pure propaganda, and the actual negative effects upon our taxes and our liberties will be outlandish (Canadians pay over 40% taxes, btw), and in exchange we will get more widely distributed, but WORSE and less accessible health care. Worst of all, however, will be the inevitable invasions of our privacy that MUST follow! Fat vouchers, anybody? Seriously, in ten years (or less), re-read this post and hail me the “prophet” that I am. Something like fat vouchers WILL be in place!
The endless “war on terror” will be used to justify ever increasing invasions of our privacy and to subject us to deeper and more thorough scrutiny. With the rallying cry changed from, “Give me liberty or give me death” to, “Take my liberties, just give me security,” again, charged with such awesome (and untenable) responsibility, the government will HAVE to assume more and more power over our private lives. Everybody I know of that has seen Minority Report would be horrified to live in such a “society,” yet, what most don’t see is that WE ARE ALREADY THERE. There is no difference in principle between the “society” depicted in Minority Report and our present “society.” We only lack the technology, but the current governmental paranoia amounts to attempting to detect “pre-crime” and ELIMINATE it (as if that were possible). Take every apocalyptical movie about tyrannical, corrupt government and explain to me what the PRINCIPLED difference is between that “society” and ours. 1984 is long past, and we have progressed FAR beyond it now. “Embolden the enemy?” The “Patriot Act?” In what conceivable sense is that act about “patriotism?” This is pure and obvious doublespeak! That act provides the government with ONGOING powers to invade private life that were previously not even granted to presidents in times of (real, declared) war, and now the government has these powers perpetually! And we are “emboldening the enemy” and “terrorist sympathizers” if we so much as have the temerity to QUESTION current governmental practices and policies?! This is “provide for the common defense” on LSD!
The “Justice” department will spend more and more time prosecuting the “offenses” of individuals and less and less time doing one of its primary jobs: protecting us from monopolistic excess. Where is the Justice Department with what should be OBVIOUS and SEVERE anti-trust suits against Big Oil? Big Oil keeps posting record profits (not revenues! profits!), and yet the price of gas at the pumps keeps going up. Congress does an “investigation” to determine if “price gouging” is taking place, and, surprise, surprise, finds “no evidence” of it. Of course, Congress WAS looking at price gouging at the PUMPS, where stations make about 4% profit on fuel! Strange how Congress can’t seem to look at BIG OIL itself to see if ANY “price gouging” might be going on there, as Big Oil employs its monopolistic stranglehold to rape us a bit more and then a bit more again! Strangely silent is the Justice Department on this issue. Yet, the Justice Department CAN find time to prosecute “suspected” terrorists and mull over literally tonnage of data supplied to it by illegal and historically unprecedented wiretapping operations performed by the highest levels of this government! In what conceivable sense is the government (Justice Department, FBI, NSA, etc.) “promoting the general welfare” or “establishing justice,” MUCH LESS “SECURING the blessings of liberty” in its current policies and priorities? Yet, “the people” raise hardly a whimper at the violations and abuses that are foisted on them. Why? Because they value “security” above ALL things. The “land of the free and the home of the brave!” BAH!
I could go on and on with cases, but this tirade must close somewhere. Ed, you say that “The Constitution was not written solely to preserve this idea [liberty] above all others.” Yet, given the history of the ratification process and what the Founders explicitly wrote on the subject, it is clear that the Constitution was written to promote a number of ideals, with the ever pervasive subtext of personal liberty SO PROMINENT that it acted as the not-always-mentioned but always-present constraint upon all other functions and values of government.
The closest example I can think of is that neither of us has even mentioned the value of breathing as we have posted on this thread. I have espoused various values, and so have you, but neither of us has even mentioned the value of breathing. We also have not mentioned the underlying value of breathing: life itself. Why? Because all of our debates are pretty pointless to dead people. We PRESUME the value of life in all of our discussions; it is the subtext of our discussion. The Founders were not so remiss, however, as they explicitly mention life among the three great values, right alongside liberty, as one of the main (and ever-pervasive) reasons to form a new government.
So, just because you cannot find the word “liberty” in every sentence of the Constitution, that does not entitle you to denigrate it as just ONE of MANY values held by the Framers and expressed by that document. THE subtext of EVERY principle of the Constitution, and THE overarching limitation placed upon the exercise of governmental power was personal liberty. It is impossible to overemphasize that value in the Constitution, in the minds of the Framers who crafted that document, or in the minds of the people who ratified it. Your “socialization” of it is not historically accurate nor in harmony with the clearly expressed intentions of the Framers or those who ratified the document.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 07:53am PT
|
Read the Leviathon, by Hobbes.
Other than living in the state of nature, every social construct is in some way a compromise on individual freedom in the "I do what I want, whenever I want, however I want" sense.
In democracies the debate revolves around where to draw the line. For some, requiring seat belt use oversteps the line, for others, it's part of the social contract we "sign" when agree to be a part of a given society.
P.S. madbolter, you should read up a little on healthcare before you write uninformed paragraphs like the one you wrote above. No univerisal healthcare system is perfect, but if you look at outcomes, the system in the US is nowhere near the top spot. Neither Canada nor the UK are high on the list either so are poor comparisons.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 08:20am PT
|
Dingus wrote: You antiseatbelt dudes are just NOT going to get traction on this issue.
Wonder if the antiseatbelt crowd and the anti-dentite crowd hang out together?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 09:22am PT
|
If you can't use logic drown'em in rhetoric. I don't even think of the federalist papers when I click my belt, and as some know it's not the easiest to click when there are others in my car; good thing there's airbags.
Seatbelts only saved my life once, well, a few times. Glad my 400 lb ex fatherinlaw never flew into the back of my head; had to cite law to get that motherf*#ker to buckle up.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 - 11:15am PT
|
thanks for your carefully thoughtout post, madbolter1, though the phrase "in the interest of space" worries me...
...I do not interpret the Constitution, or the Federalist papers, or the Declaration, or any of the history as supporting the idea of individual liberty above all. That is a way to simplistic view, and one that justifies an abrogation of the responibility of government.
Great care was given to the thought of how these things would play out, and to some extent it is amazing just how long a run it has had... the fact that initially the House of Representatives was a popularly elected body and their role in levying taxes... giving the people what they wanted (and/or deserved).
While I also believe in minimizing the intrusion of government into my personal life, I do not believe that the government has no responibility in the common wealfare. And I especially believe that the government plays an essential role in adjudicating between individual interests.
Let's take this long winded philosophizing back to seatbelts. We drive on a highway system that was built and is maintained by the federal government. We access that system via a road system largely built by state and local government. To use this system we agree to a set of rules, laws laid down by states.
First we must have a drivers license. This is not considered a right, but a regulation which insures we understand the laws governing usage of a common utility. We can loose our license by violating the laws as reported to the states by a govenmental law enforcement body, say the California Highway Patrol.
Why do we agree to a system which takes away our liberty? Because no one of us could build and maintain a road/highway system, we all did it, and then agreed to define what it meant to be allowed to use it.
Now it all could have been done differently, we could have allowed "individuals" to build the system and kept the government out of it. "Individuals" in this case means the commercial sector. However, this did not happen for automobile roads, it did for railroads. One could argue that the railroad model was the correct model for a large national scale utility. To argue that one would have to deal with the myriad problems that occured regarding the power of the railroad companies over the interest of the people, the infringements on the liberty of the people, their inalienable rights... who decides who's liberty is more important? and how? Would we, should we, submit to a private road system? and if yes, how does that infringe on our own individual liberties?
In your view, the "individual" is the overiding concern. But as soon as you have more than two individuals there is a need to define the interaction, the "society" becomes important. Societies are emergant phenomena, they do not simply derive from a collection of individuals. What societies are possible spans a larger range than the simplistic model you present.
I agree that the country was founded on principals promoting "individual liberty," the very fact that so much was written regarding this indicates to me that the issue was extremely difficult to reconcile with societal needs. That is the balancing act that goes on, to tilt more to one or the other, to the individual or the society, is not good. That is what I believe. There need to be people who believe passionately on one or the other, but the majority of the people will be for balance.... and that is how things will go.
|
|
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2007 - 11:58pm PT
|
So given the argument by many that seatbelts SHOULD be mandatory due to them being of minimal inconvenience, and having many here personally saved by them:
SHOULD MOTORCYCLES BE ILLEGAL?
You can't belt in, and they have a much higher deaths per hour of operation than with passenger cars. Similar to people driving without a seatbelt, they expose others to potential psychological trauma because the rider is more likely to die if you hit them than if they were in a sturdy car wearing a belt.
Please explain to me the rationality behind it being legal and moral to drive a much less safe motorcycle, but not legal or moral to choose to not wear your seatbelt.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!