Like I said, once they take care of you, they own you. That's how they get their claws in you. Look at all the nutritional crap coming down the pike. It starts with "recommendations", then mandates in schools (for the children of course), then eventually full blown regulation and prohibition of our diet (bans on trans fats are already in some areas).
I am not huge a fan of big brother overstepping their boundaries but this is an area I have no problem with. It is not just from an economical standpoint. You have to think about development of the kids if the person has any and the overall emotional affect it as on the family and friends.
Where's the full blow regulation of our diet? You're confusing regulation of what people are allowed to sell in markets with regulation of what people are allowed to eat. If someone wants to consume poison in their own home, that's their choice. But don't sell it at the grocery store and call it food. And mandating sensible safety precautions when people are on the public roads isn't simply to protect them from their own stupidity. It also protects their family from their stupidity. Not to mention, as others have said, the financial burden on the rest of the public.
We should force people to wear helmets because their death would inconvenience others? With that line of thinking the government would be justified in making me run a mile every morning or eat right to make sure I stay healthy.
Surely there's a sane middle-ground here? If something as simple as seat belt and helmet laws can save thousands of lives, at very minor inconvenience, then I support it. And we're talking about public roadways, right?. Its not a case where the government is intruding on choices one makes in their private life. If someone wants to use the public roads, then its fair for the public to put rules in place to reduce unnecessary deaths.
You give a government an inch and it will take a mile. The commerce clause, FCC, and EPA are examples of this. Either you think one of the functions of government is to protect citizens from themselves or you don't. There is no middle ground.
That's not what I think. What I think is that the public should be able to put in place regulations on how public resources -- like roads -- may be used. If you had your own property with its own roads, then its not anyone else's business if you choose to ride around in it without seatbelt or helmet. Analogously, I'm not going to tell you what you can do in your own home. But if you come to my home, there are certain rules I would expect you to follow.
You're splitting hairs. The purpose of limiting access is to limit use. And one person's poison is another person's treat. What's sensible? In my mind sensible would be not riding motorcycles at all, they are deathtraps and not worth the thrill they provide. But I'm not going to tell anyone how to live their life. It's none of my effing business whether they want to wear a helmet or not. There's a reason it's called progressivism. Inch by inch, rule by rule, ban by ban, they chip away at our choices and our behavior. It's insidious incrementalism. And of course, each restriction is minor enough that any opposition is seen as petty and unreasonable. That's the idea.
And yet no one is stopping you from cooking and consuming such poisonous treats to your stomach's content. You just can't profit off of selling it to kids. There is a very clear distinction. I don't think its splitting hairs. Again, I would say that the roads belong to the public. Since the public pays for the road, not to mention the hospital should someone get into an accident, the public should be able to regulate the manner in which those roads are used. If you want to argue that everything should be privatized, that's another topic (for D&D). But as long as it isn't, enforcing common sense safety precautions on public roads is appropriate.
If you don't agree with it then you better not agree to recieving a government disability check when your paralized from the neck down
Pretty stupid idea.... how long has this nation been in existence? How many times in our history have restrictions and bans have been put in place and then lifted? If you honestly think thats the way the politicians in office think then I don't know what to say? What is the point for them to have an ultra totalitarian authority over citizens? Isn't that the point of having a limited time in office?
Stupid government. When steamboats were invented, they couldn't leave well enough alone. Had to go and pass a law that required steamboats to have their boilers inspected just because they kept blowing up and killing passengers. Those Congressional commies in 1838 and 1852 had no respect for the free enterprise system as they never gave the market a chance to regulate itself and build safer steamboats. Instead they went and mandated safer steamboats. Coincidentally, steamboats stopped killing people with such regularity. Tugboats and freightboats, which weren't included in the law with passenger steamboats, kept blowing up and so in 1871 Congress passed a general marine safety act that applied to everything. Boilers had to be inspected and captains had to be licensed. This ridiculous bureaucracy kept expanding and is now part of the US Coast Guard. How absurd that the government would change an entire industry just because a bunch of people died. The free market would have gotten there eventually and we'd be a lot more free today, even if the development of the part of our country served by steamboats (like, you know, most of it between the Mississippi/Missouri Rivers and the Atlantic) was r****ded and delayed while people and goods kept blowing up because people didn't understand the science behind boilers. You see this odious pattern repeated many times since. DDT, seat belts, air traffic control (pilots should be free to take off and land where and when they want!), amusement park rides, drinking water quality, firefighting (you should have the freedom to put your own fire out, even if you didn't start it), nuclear reactors, and lots more. Just a huge trampling of our freedom. Imagine the amount and quality of freedom we'd have if only we had to worry about all that stuff we don't have to worry about. (Non-snark note: The Steamboat Inspection Service is considered by some historians to be the first regulatory agency in our history.)
This. Seriously a helmet is a minor inconvenience and for that matter riding a motorcycle on a public roadway isn't a right but a privilege.
Replace helmets with airport security as the minor inconvenience and bikes with planes and many more people would be singing a different tune.
Poppycock. The odds of smashing your unhelmeted head is significantly greater than a terrorist blowing up your airplane. And really, if TSA was in charge of motorcycle protective gear, they wouldn't care that much about helmets but would instead inspect your socks to see if they are wicking enough moisture.
Exactly. Also just to add you also have to look at the effectiveness of such policy. As has been brought up several times in the D & D thread about this that the TSA policies are not proven to be effective. Helmets have shown effectiveness when it comes to protection in motorcycle accidents.
