- This topic has 55 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A seat belt may help you stay in control of your vehicle if some idiot hits you. Since the vehicle is very dangerous, we require many things to keep it from running into houses or over bus stops.
Helmets on Moterbikes, that is more social. If I hit you and you are on a motorbike, you being helmetless increases MY liability. We are all forced to work together on the road. You being nearly invisible on the bike makes me force you to wear a helmet incase I bump into you with my car.
So aside from the welfare/insurance, the shared use of roads has other issues.
Smoke travels, it kills and at the least, makes people like me cough.
Your freedom does not allow you to drive into my house or put smoke into my lung. (Please ignore the smoke from the car into peoples lungs….stay on target).
The bailsong and switch blade are illegal because people kept cutting their own fingers off.(wierd, as I typed this a guy on TV said, \”cut 3 of my fingers off…\”) or stabbing themselves. It is a classic law of protecting people from themselves. Killing others is allready illegal, no matter what method you use.
Just so we are all clear, in the USA, any group of people can create a set of laws to govern how they get along. If you don’t like local laws, move. Get a group of like minded folks and make your own laws. However, these laws can not restrict an individuals actions if these actions DO NOT AFFECT OTHERS.
Smoking in public hurts others, cars driving on roads affect others, Bailsongs only damage the users own fingers.
I though balisongs were made illegal because they had an opening mechanism that was perceived as a switchblade (which is foolish), and when open it has a very strong locking mechanism, thus making it very suitable to stabbing. So basically, it seemed like a dangerous weapon used by the criminal element, not illegal because people were hurting themselves. That wouldn’t explain the switchblade, telescoping baton, knuckleduster, sword cane etc (but would explain the nunchaku and lawn dart)
I’m glad someone brought up the Patriot Act- it really bothers me how some people complain about the government making laws and invading privacy but don’t say anything about the Patriot Act because it was enacted by a Republican (the party these complainers are from).
\”Smoking in public hurts others, cars driving on roads affect others, Bailsongs only damage the users own fingers.\”
So, if I OWN a restaurant, I shouldn’t be able to decide if patrons can smoke or not? The second part is a ridiculous leap.
\”I’m glad someone brought up the Patriot Act- it really bothers me how some people complain about the government making laws and invading privacy but don’t say anything about the Patriot Act because it was enacted by a Republican (the party these complainers are from).\”
So, which of the \”complainers\” here has professed a following to the Republican party? How many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act?
BTW, only ONE senator voted against the original Patriot Act, so this partyline BS is ludicrous. I don’t agree with much that’s in the act, but your statement was a crock.
Dont get me wrong guys. I am all for limitations to things. For example. I support no smoking laws involving resturants and places such as malls shopping areas all that and the like. I would prefer the Government step out and let the private owners do it. But I still suport the law, because its a good idea. I also support mandatory seatbelts for Kids. Kids dont know any better where adults should. Still the term should not be \”Nationwide: Click it or Ticket!\” I’m a firm believer in natural selection. Dumbasses should be naturally selected to be removed from our society.
Here is where I think the government steps too far. If I go to a nightclub or a bar later at night I know I am going to a smoking environment where there is going to be lots of smoke. As a patron I can make my choice to go regardless of the smoke, stay home, or try and find a non-smoking alternative. Because I am going to a public place that supports smoking I dont feel its within my right to tell someone they cant smoke. If your concerned about the health risks….consider how many smokers are going outside in the cold and getting ill just to get their fix. Now consider how that could/is going to effect your health insurance premiums. Its not that I think the law is all bad, just that there is a point where enough is enough its a little too much. Like Seattle where you must go a full 25′ from a building to smoke. The sherriff even publicly stated he doesnt have enough police to enforce the damn law.
And to bring up a point from my original post. How many people think they should pay taxes on how many miles they drive a day instead of how much gas they buy? Do you want the government tracking how much you drive by GPS? I believe some states are considering this alternative to the gas tax in order to generate road revinue. I understand the money must come from somewhere. But tracking my milage? I refuse to even buy onstar for fear that someday I might piss off a smart maniac who could access onstar’s locational data and track my every move.
Hell I dont get to choose where I live because I signed on the dotted line and live/work where my superiors tell me to. But I chose to bind my life to that restriction instead of having it forced on me. Every law that even in the slightest way violates or restricts freedom (Aka: Patriot Act) sets the precident for later more restrictive violations of freedom.
I’m of the opinion that there should be minimal gov’ment intrusion coupled with maximum individual responsibility. But, that’s a pipe dream in today’s world because the concept of this individual responsibility is lost on many many people.
What came first, chicken or egg, governmental baby-sitting creating an immature, irresponsible society or an irresponsible society leading to its baby-sitting?
Seat belt / insurance / car accident / personnal responsibility / and the law.
As we all know seat belts are required in most states and insurance in all states. Try This On For Size: I obey all the laws of the nation, have both vehicular and health insurance and always were a seatbelt. However, in my local area, many drivers don’t have vehciular insurance nor do they wear their seatbelts (based on accident stats)…I might add that many of these same non-law abiding citizens have no health insurance to boot.
What happens if I get into an serious accident with one of these citizens. Here’s what happens: ambulances come, I have sustained moderate injuries. Let’s say back, neck, ribs, etc., but nothing overt. However, the non-seatbelt wearing individual sustains severe trama to head, face, whatever. We both end up in the emergency room where the other guy is immediately treated and tended to, but I am forced to sit for OH! say two hours (not uncommon at ERs). We are both released 12 hours later and I must continue to go for PT to recover.
Here’s the real rub. 3 weeks later my insurance bills begin to roll in…and eventhough my insurance is great, my portion of the costs amounts to about 4,000, something that will haunt me for half a year. Yet because I am a responsible citizen, I accept the debt and fight to pay it off to prevent negative reflection in a credit report. THE OTHER GUY can’t pay and it is pointless for the hospital to go after him so he gets off scott free.
THE POINT: We who are responsible citizens sometimes need gov’t intrusion to protect us from irresponsible citizens. Is that what they’re doing…this forum counldn’t begin to adequately address that. It’s a complicated system, but it’s the one we have. We do the best we can, try to take care of our own, and trust God for the rest.
Monty, I simply disagree. \”We\” have CHOSEN to accept these things as status quo. We have allowed it to become this way. If I don’t want to help the guy that didn’t/wouldn’t help himself, I shouldn’t be forced to do so. That’s why charities and faith-based organizations exist. It’s not in the government’s mandate, though we’ve allowed it to be and now expect it.
Monty,
In your accident who was at fault? Because if he was the law is on your side. Hell because he was un-insured the law still is on your side. You can sue for the costs to your vehicle and your money. Maybe you will get it maybe you wont.Yes I say the law is on your side, because I do agree with some laws, the ones that protect rights and not violate them. Everyone has a right to get re-imbursed or recooperate what they have lost if they are not responsible for the action that lost/injured/damaged them.
Now, if you were at fault, then really who broke the law? Even though you followed all the other laws if you were the fault then im sorry but you had a lapse of responsibility. Now please take no offense I am not laying blame just looking at both sides and the consequences of adult responsibility.
Either way one of you broke the law in order to have a semi-major car accident. But the real question is, did the seat-belt or lack there of cause the car accident? Did his lack of seatbelt cause you anything but a few hours extra in the hospital?
Seatbelt or not this accident still would have occurred. I am sure had your injuries been bad enough you both would have been treated at the same time. Seatbelt or not they still take the most injured person first. I am glad that you valued your life enough to wear your seatbelt and so were harmed little in this accident. The most important part is your decision to wear a seatbelt saved your life which truly is the most important thing in the world.
Just to be clear on the smoking laws…they were not enacted to protect patrons from other patrons. They were enacted to create a healthy work environment for the employees. It was under the workers protection act that the smoking ban in California was enacted.
This goes back to my line of reasoning about the government creating laws when they will end up paying for the consequences. In terms of law-making, being a patron and choosing to go to a bar that smokes, and being a employee and choosing to work at a bar where people smoke, are two different things. I understand the same line of reasoning applies \”If you dont like it, get a job somewhere else.\” but that is not how the laws work when it comes to employee safety.
If you went to your office and the upstairs bathroom was leaking sewage on your desk, and your employer said, \”Tough, deal with it. I like the smell of sewage and I choose to run my business this way.\” There would be a lawsuit brewing and you would win because your employer created a unsafe work environment. Same thing with smoking at a bar. Since smoking causes cancer, the bar tender, bouncers, and servers should not be forced to work in an unsafe work environment just because they chose to be a bar tender.
Ultimately non-smokers who chose to work as a waitress in a smoking diner, or a bar-tender in a smoking bar, have just as good a chance of getting lung cancer. In these cases, lung cancer will be a work related injury resulting in full payout of workers comp and coverage by the government for work related injuries.
I am not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I just wanted everyone to be clear exactly why the smoking bans got passed. Its about protecting employees, not patrons.
Siayn,
How many of those bartenders/waitresses are themselves smokers who didnt want this law enacted? I bet most of them didnt want it. Why? Because 1) I bet tips went down for the maybe (just guessing) 10% of all smokers who now prefer to get drunk in their own homes. 2) A majority of them probably smoke so thats another reason they probably didnt want it.
Why does the government of CA feel that it must step in to protect people who knowingly work in harmful environments? SO builders must stop building because something could fall on them and kill them. Electricians must stop working cause they could electrecute themselves. Busdrivers/Truckers must stop working because they might get into an accident. People in the military must stop joining because they could get shot in Iraq. My brother is a miner in Montana….he has seen more friends die in the mines because of cave ins and on the job accidents. Every job has its hazards, people who do those jobs choose to take the risk to their health in order to make the money. Bartenders and waitresses are not stupid there is good money in doing the job, as in every job there is a risk. The governments argument of protecting them is stupid.
Keep in mind I am not speaking out against these laws because I am a smoker. I am passionate about what I signed up to protect and I see it as a huge intrusion on the rights of the american people, smokers or non. It is such as it always leads to more and more and more because no one stands up and says HEY! Thats not right. In ten years will it be illegal to smoke?
My point still remains: When is enough, enough? Where does it stop?
Quote \”How many of those bartenders/waitresses are themselves smokers who didnt want this law enacted? I bet most of them didnt want it.\”
You are absolutely correct, they didnt. I was actually living in Cali the year this went into effect and was friends with a few people in the business. They were angry that the govt thought it was OK to do this.
But because a group of waitresses had sued a large chain of diners, OSHA, and the state about not doing enough to protect their rights as workers, the whining of a few cost the state big $$$ which was paid out once again in taxpayer dollars.
I vote we kill all the lawyers who make a business out of frivilous lawsuits, get rid of all these over-bearing laws, and purge the victim mentality from our society. When someone wants $10mil for burning themselves with hot coffee at McDonalds, we should tell them to F-off.
But since that will never happen, government has to make petty laws to protect themselves from lawsuits that are paid for by a waste of taxpayer dollars…
Oh, I hate to encourage a thread that should probably die, but…
We should realize that there aren’t as many frivolous law suits as we are led to believe. I recommend that you look into the McDonald’s coffee incident. While we can all mock it, the facts are that the person injured had serious burns on her thighs and had to be hospitalized for a week and receive skin grafts; the coffee was not just hot, but the machine was tested and found to be heating the coffee much higher than it was supposed to; and that McDonalds had received over 700 complaints during a ten year period about the heat of the coffee. By the way, the woman only wanted to settle and get her medical bills paid, but the corporation opposed her and took it to trial.
You can review this and many other \”urban myth\” lawsuits at snopes.com or atla.com (you may not trust the latter because it’s a trial lawyer site).
I don’t present this in the interest of fostering one view or the other, I’m just interested in presenting facts.
Ask why. Ask for proof. Don’t assume.
Since people keep posting I will go ahead and add my almost ? a cent. I also find this amusing and irritating as I just got back from a lawyers office and am going to end up paying quite a bit of many just so I can protect myself from stupid law suits brought against my business.
A few thoughts
Government is self-perpetuating. The more government you have the more you will continue to have. While I would not say it is exponential growth, I would definitely say that some math wiz could probably find some sort of geometric growth pattern related to the number of laws and what rate they continue to grow.
Our country is turning into an entitlement society. I am entitled to (substitute whatever you want). There used to be a sign on a road that my wife and I drive on quite a bit. It was an ad for one of those rent-to-own places. It said, ìEveryone deserves good stuffî. Drove me nuts every time I saw it, but many people in this society feel that way. The problem is that some arenít willing to work for ìthe good stuffî, but think they deserve it anyway.
The last 15 years seems to have been about the rights of the few out weighing the rights of the many (a.k.a. political correctness). Our country was designed to protect the fewÖbut I am not sure it meant to empower the few. Although beware, things like smoking bans are beginning to show that the majority (whether moral or not) is flexing its collective muscles. Never seems like a bad thing until they outlaw something you do.
As long as a tax system is progressive most will not care about taxes, because they are at the lower end of the tax burden chain. As long as it is happening to the other guy it doesnít matter.
You know how the old joke about political beliefs and age (well maybe not that old and maybe not a joke). As a young child I believed what my parents believed. As a young adult I believed the liberal way was the only way mainly because it drove my parents crazy. I started to make money and realized why everyone complained about taxes, but I stuck to my guns and voted liberal. I made more money and realized that they tax you more as you make more money from hard work (note to selfÖtell my children to listen up when they hear progressive tax system), so I decided that I would vote economically conservative but socially liberal. I made even more money and realized that not only is the tax system progressive, but really progressive at higher bracketsÖForget about the social issues I am voting conservative across the board.
Stupidity is a result of genetics and therefore sad but understandable. True ignorance (defined as the lack of opportunity to have learned) is deplorable but once again understandable. Self inflicted ignorance is sloth and apathy at its bestÖ.and unfortunately a majority of this country on both sides of the political spectrum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
