Motorcycle Forums banner
201 - 220 of 272 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Discussion Starter · #201 ·
Re: Bunch of Liberal double talk

Let us say this: thought the politicos of the time had different ideas on how the constutition should be written, their chief issue was a general wariness of government. The argument was exactly how said government should be kept within its bounds and the best way to safeguard the liberties of the people. Can anyone imagine any one of the founders, who were pretty much universally fed up with their subservient role to the king, endorsing our current near-socialist state?

I also don't see how the different realities of the 21st century should case the role of government to be any different. As I've argued before, the chief role of a morally legitimate government (meaning that which is not tyranny) is to preserve the liberty of the people. To that end, the constitution contains the rules needed to realize that ideal. Certainly, in the past, and currently in different ways, those ideals were and are imperfectly realized, yet they are still right there in the text.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

What a load of manure. Yeah, things were perfect back in 18th century, when people were perfectly free to do anything they wanted (unless they were women or ******* or didn't own land). What hokum. Here's some news for those of you living in Post-Colonial Fantasy Land: we're not going back, and it never existed in the first place. Let's face it: you and the vast majority of the libertarian whiners in this country have never, ever been "screwed out of their important constitutional freedoms," or anything remotely resembling.

The reason we have helmet laws is because risk in our society is distributed, through issuance of insurance policies and government subsidy. If your house were destroyed by flood or natural disaster, you'd gladly accept government aid to help you rebuild. If medicaid or medicare paid for you're new liver, I'm sure I wouldn't hear you complain about the violation of your constitutional freedom to die of liver disease. If the bank where you keep your money fails, I'm sure you'll take the FDIC money, too.

Helmet laws save the lives of reckless young people. If you feel that this is unnecessary tampering with the evolutionary process to save their lives despite their whims and hormones, then I suppose you just value human life less than I do.

The only peope hurt by helmet laws are those who make a living in taking valuable organs from young, dead people, and placing them in the bodies of rich, old people. To heck with them, and to heck with so-called "individualists" who don't have enough perspective to know what the difference is between loss of an "important constitutional freedom" and what is obviously good public policy.%0"#ff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
After 206 post this will prolly be lost in the shuffle, but what the hell - here I go. The deal with helmets is what's basically wrong with the rest of things - accountability. You wanna ride without a helmet? Great. You wanna ride with a helmet? Great. But, instead of mandatory helmet laws there should be a law that says if you didn't wear a helmet and got in a crash that you've decided to waive your right to any insurance or future help based on that fact. Kind of like a DNR - Do Not Rescussitate (sp), but for those who wanted to go with the freedom of no helmet. Yes, I think those who ride without helmets are squids. Just like I think those who ride in cars and willing don't wear seatbelts are squids, but laws should be about accountability - not about oppression. But people should be willing to reap what they sow. So go out and enjoy the wind in your hair and the bugs in your eyes - just don't expect me to pay higher insurance costs when your brainpan becomes the next stain on the road. Just suck it up (or suck on the respirator) and deal with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

I can't speak for people further up in this thread, but I don't WANT my life saved by a law (unless I were a minor and couldn't decide). I would much rather have the choice than not, knowing the risks involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
>>Sheesh. I'm sure you complain just as vociferously about all the other 1.7 million "laws" which curb our liberty.>Do you wear your seatbelt in your car ? Whoa there fella ! You're throwing away your freedoms. I'm sure you'll make sure your kids are also jumping around the front seat of the car without seatbelts, lest they contribute to the opression by our government. >When I put on my helmet, I certainly don't feel like I'm being opressed by the public. I do, however, feel like I have a much better chance at surviving a crash without major head trauma. >Guarantee me that I won't in some way contribute financially to rescuing a guy who's turned his brain into mush due to lack of helmet use, and I'll never say another word about helmet laws. <<



Well, you shouldn't have to unwillingly contribute to people who've done dumb stuff to vegetate themselves. But I CAN pretty much guarantee that that guy without a helmet is much less likely to turn you or somebody else into a, um, vegetable.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I think if you read some of these posts you'll come to the conclusion that our situation has to do with definition.

We all use words incorrectly everyday. Misinterpreting the true definition of a word like "free". If you look up the word, you'll see what I mean. We aren't, nor have we ever been close to "free" by definition. That's ok because neither has any other country for that matter. It is impossible, there will always be a limitation of some sort. My biggest gripe isn't the lack of being free. Its the fact that we think we are.

We have to give out so much personal information to get any "privilege" in this country. No I'm not talking about government. Even past that point. I'm talking about retail. We have excepted certain things to the point that we will give anyone access to our lives (on paper) so that we might get a free movie rental? The now popular "discount members card" being offered everywhere from Petco to your local grocery store is prime example that we have become complacent with restriction. In exchange for marketing info they give you 10%. The same people will complain about junk mail, telemarketing and heaven forbid spam. We say everyday "ok that's not a bad deal'. Ill give this up for that. If people allow it, then they shouldn't complain about it. Even if we didn't agree but yet we said nothing. Silence is approval.

So don't kid yourself we aren't "free" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
loosen up the noose eh?

We could stand to loosen up the noose a little and let people have a chance to be responsible. For example in Europe's autobahn there is a suggested speed limit. You will not be ticketed for ignoring it. However your insurance will not cover an accident above the suggested speed limit. So you have a bit more privilege in that situation to judge your own ability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Re: OK, so where does this argument really lead?

Actually the thing to do would be to track the original cost of production vs. the maintenence cost. When the two are equal, you send it to be salvaged. No how to separate production cost from maintenance, expecially for humans under the age of 18 or so? Prenatal care would factor in I suppose... but not food, that's just a running cost (like gas).

So how are your hospital bills?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Re: O.K, I'll Bite...

O.K. first of all, if we really want to help out the world and our pocketbooks we would not worry about paying for a couple of dough-heads who wrecked their bikes and weren't wearing a bucket--they are a very small minority of patients in hospitals today.
But you're suggesting we concentrate on things that actually matter! That's gotta be unamerican, or something. Nope, the american way is endless debate on things that consume minor percentages of the federal budget (but make for good soundbites) to divert us all from actually discussing important issues.

What kind of patients are the biggest money suckers? The smokers and drinkers. [/QUOTE]

Well for the record, if I wind up with cirosys (Sir Os'es?), I don't want a new liver. I'm not going to do the David Crosby thing and blow 2 livers because of being a dumb ***** in my youth. I don't want to spend time in a hostpital, because other people (with non-fatal illnesses that aren't a consequence of their own actions) need the space more. I'll just keep riding my bike while I can, then give Kevorkian a call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Re: O.K, I'll Bite...

I was just saying that motorcyclist are not the main patients in the hospital and they can't use that as an excuse for helmet laws.
Unfortunately, that's shouldn't, not can't. They will twist statistics in any way they can to make the point they want. Hell, much of the public is gullable enough to just accept 'cost' without any statistical basis. Look at this thread: people keep arguing what costs more, but nobody has supplied any numbers. Your observation that few hospital patients are helmetless bikers is at least anecdotal evidence that the cost issue is a red herring, but that's the best I've seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
some people can't stand the thought of being seen on anything but a harley, regardless of the fact that 95% of the bikes on the marketplace are faster and more reliable.
Speed and relyability just isn't high on their list of priorities. Which is what you're saying, I guess.
 
201 - 220 of 272 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top