[ValknMag]

Re: Helmet Laws Bite!

"Go visit a grand father in a hospital, with his head stitched up like a baseball, who can't remember who are, because he fell off a ...."

Roof. Ladder. Horse. Pickup truck tailgate. Fence. Ten-foot high stack of government regulations endorsed by people who use emotions to decide what laws the rest of us must put up with. Funny, with all the advocates trying to make my life safe, nobody is endorsing Hahn's devices on horses, but look at Christopher Reeve...

 

[ValknMag]

You are assuming, of course, that we think income taxes are a good idea; that we think the government should be paying our medical bills and thus have the right to run our lives; that we agree with seat belt laws, etc. I live in a suburb--you're saying I can ride a dirtbike on my lawn? Nope. But wait--I pay property taxes, so it's the government's land anyhow! On your slippery slope, then, the government has a right to dictate EVERYTHING that goes on in my house, don't they? All the pro-helmet law people begin with the flawed premise that the government is supposed to pick up the check for everything in life, including medical bills. Go to Barnes & Noble, you can get a copy of the U.S. Constitution for $3.95. Medical bills are not addressed in this document. But then, if people like you didn't try to grow our goverment into super-nanny, you wouldn't have any excuse to tell us how to live, now, would you, comrade?

 

[ValknMag]

Re: Helmet Laws Bite!

I wasn't making fun of a typo (if I were, I would have pointed out 'dimensa'). What I'm pointing out is that there are more risky activities out there. Why couldn't he fall off a roof, or fence, or horse? What laws can we pass to make these activities safer? "I guess we should stop trying to make your life safe" YES! YOU GET IT NOW! CUT IT OUT! STOP! HALT! DESIST! If I want to be safe, I have a 4,300-pound car with airbags.

 

[ValknMag]

I live here because, presently, it's the best choice. And I'm trying to get rid of income taxes. "If you're in the minority T.S." The majority opinion doesn't need protecting, the minority does. This is why all states have equal representation in the Senate, so Rhode Island doesn't get steamrolled by California. "I'll meet you at..." I already have my copy. Amendment X : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "So does the government..." Worse. Freedom to fail is as important as freedom to succeed. Do you think that your government providing health care or unemployement makes you a better person? Do you consider it charity? Let's put it in these terms : If you are robbed at gunpoint by someone who needs the money, is it charity? No, you think, because it is compulsory. You did not give to someone of your own free will. Now, if I don't pay my taxes, sooner or later guns will come into play, to imprison me or take my house or whatever. Taxes are compulsory, so don't feel good about helping people with your tax dollars. It does not make you a better person. I also object to my tax money going towards the National Endowment for the Arts, but I buy art works I like and support those artists whose work I like. "Oh and if you have a problem..." what law is going to lower taxes?

 

[ValknMag]

Re: Tumbler

Drinking and driving can kill people besides the rider. Speeding through school zones can kill someone besides the rider. Laws should exist to protect people from one another. I object to laws to protect me from myself. We agree that I should not drink ten ounces of Jim Beam and get in my car and drive around, right? Now, should I be allowed to drink that Beam in my own house? How about 20 ounces? 40? Eventually, I get to a point where I become sick from alcohol poisoning. Is the answer to create Government Alcohol centers, where I am given a safe portion of booze and forced to consume it there (so I can't stockpile it)? Or, should I assume the risk associated with alcohol?

 

[ValknMag]

Re: Tumbler

You, however, are advocating laws to keep people from getting hurt feelings.

 

[ValknMag]

If we stuck to this one particular helmet law, there wouldn't be much to discuss. This thread was really started by your post trying to make the point that government laws should be all or nothing. Responding specifically to your post above, you say, "Saying hey you need to wear at least a minimum of protection is a good idea." Saying something is a good idea, and forcing people to do something, are not the same. I agree that beginners should wear helmets. Ohio law says that riders under 21 must wear helmets, and all riders their first year have 'Novice' on their motorcycle endorsement and are required to wear helmets. I think those are both VERY good ideas. I didn't know about all the dangers involved in riding when I got into it, and I doubt I know them all now. This seems more like something which should be addressed through training, rather than helmet laws. For example, I bought my first motorcycle while I still had only a learner's permit. I don't think anyone should be able to register a motorcycle without a motorcycle license. The Ohio riders test was about 10 minutes in a parking lot. No training, other than enough to pass the test, required. I would require passing an MSF or equivalent class before granting a motorcycle endorsement. This way, you have (as much as possible) an educated riding public, eyes open to the dangers of motorcycling, who can then be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their own lives.

 

[ValknMag]

Re: Tumbler

Sorry, I thought you were referring back to grandmother watching grandfather die.

Okay, here's my last post on the subject. We have two completely opposite views of what a government is supposed to do. My feeling is that what was laid out in the constitution is what we should have--the gov't protects people from one another, and leaves you alone to sink or swim on your own. Yes, this has changed over the years and through necessity government powers have broadened, but they've gone too far. There should be (in my mind) environmental laws, which were not forseen at the time the constitution was framed. This falls under protecting us from one another. It seems that you feel the government has a big box of rights, and gives them to us occasionally when it thinks we've been good boys and girls. The fathers of this country (Whoops! My political incorrectness is showing!) felt that the people had all the rights, and had to, by their consent, give up some of those rights on a piece-by-piece basis in order to get along. That is, we must be willing to give up the right to drink and drive, in order to maintain society. Seems that if such a thing didn't exist, all of us here today would vote in favor of such a thing, right? Anyhow, the important thing is that the rights flow from the people to the government, and not vice-versa. That is the gist of the 10th amendment, that you don't have to wait for the government to grant you permission to ride a motorcycle. It is your right until such time as legislators decide that it is pushing up insurance costs too much. Now, using my philosophy as a basis, I would point out that if I were riding a motorcycle with or without a helmet, or walking down the street, or sitting in my living room, and I got struck by a car, I would prefer that the government not get involved in the health care aspects. I don't think that's what the government is for. Vehicular laws should be used to punish the driver, and I could bring civil suit against him or his family, because he is responsible. Many people of a liberal bent feel that since we already have X laws on the books where the government provides money and services, X+1 laws is better, then X+2 laws, etc. Government payments for health care are a bad move, and using the that bad move as a foundation for more bad laws is...well...bad.

 

[ValknMag]

Sales/usage taxes. When I pay 43 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, that money should be used for transportation--period. Maintain roads, test helmets, etc. Property taxes should maintain city infrastructure. Taxes on clothing, cat litter, wrenches, etc. go towards general government responsibilities, such as national defense. Income taxes should be dropped, as they are used to punish successful people. This pre-supposes, of course, that we pare down the various levels of government mightily. My suburb just spent $250,000 on a cast iron arch going over one of the roads coming into town. Wanna come see it, promote tourism? Giving more money in the form of income taxes to any government is just handing crack to the addicts. If my 'burb didn't get $2000 from me last year in income taxes, could they have afforded that sign?

 

[ValknMag]

Re: Tumbler

(trembling lower lip) You...you don't _really_ hate fat people, do you, longrid?

 

[ValknMag]

Oh, you wanted a REALISTIC scenario! You should have said something. I know the federal government is too far gone to ever be reined in. When you crunched the numbers on the flat tax, did you assume current rate of spending, or my insane idea that the governments basically provide just infrastructure?