Back the government up the the size it was in 1900, and I think we would have a good start. More laws create more agencies that create more lobbying to create more laws to create more agencies. Gotta say one thing here. I have read your stuff in magazines since I was a kid JB. I respect your opinions and thoughts, even though I don't agree with some of them. I think it's pretty cool chatting with a guy I thought was a really good moto journo and read most of his stuff through the years. Gotta say the Internet is only really cool cause the Gov hasn't touched it. Yet. Let's hope they don't get here too soon, or we will have to wear helmets to type! LOL
I live in Louisiana and have ridden for 45 years, half of it offroad only. I have always ridden wearing a helmet, regardless of the law. Why take a chance? A few years ago a long-time riding buddy was trying out a new (to him) bike while helmetless and had slowed to turn around. A deer jumped out in front of him when he was off-balance and tumbled into him, he fell and hit his temple on a curb. Game over permanently for him. Speed was 5 mph.
In 1900, there was no such thing as food inspection, and thousands of people died from tainted meat and things. Sinclair Lewis wrote all about it in The Jungle (I think about the Chicago stockyards.) Rivers caught fire the pollution was so bad. Kids labored away in sweat shops from the age of 5. Life expectancy was somewhere shy of 40. Govt. is capable of excess of course, but all these agencies didn't arise out of a vacuum, they came into being because society saw a need.
Yes, I read The Concrete Jungle. Yes, some agencies are here to protect us, but protecting me from harmful products and polluters, and protecting me from myself are two different animals IMO. I think todays society sees too many needs for self-protection, and I rail against those. I think it goes something like the more idiot proof you make something, the more you become an idiot. Lets clear up that other issue. Yes, helmets are safer than not. No, I still don't want a law saying I have to wear one. Yes, I do wear a helmet 80% of the time. I also choose not to wear it and like the fact I can choose, adn would hope that you would be on the side of choice.
I understand the "freedom of choice" arguments, but it just strikes me as kind of a stupid freedom to worry about. Kinda like fighting for the freedom to play Russian Roulette - after all, it's only you that is going to get hurt, right? So, it should be your choice?
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I really do feel like in this case the "right to choose" is nothing more than the "right to be stupid". I am a Canadian, and sometimes feel like you 'murcans take the personal liberties arguments to ridiculous extremes. If a behaviour is very obviously dangerous and has only very limited benefits (like, good hair? Saving $100? I dunno...) then I don't have a problem with disallowing it.
Exactly KP. We should "let" free people make their own choices. Or, are you of the opinion that someone can still be "free" while their govt. tells them what color shoes to wear and what to put on their heads and what to brush their teeth with? -Sean
Great analogy "Russian Roulette" Can I quote you on that? Working with a couple of Canadians has made me think about these things a little differently. Americans need listen to our Canadians neighbors more, like a good friend they can tell you when you are being stupid. Iraq was a good example.
81 - 100 of 236 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.