In my state, you get a ticket if you do not wear your seatbelt. I don't understand how they have this right?
1. We are not the 'greatest good for the greatest number' country. We are a country that gives ppl choices over their own bodies and protect that right... the right of the ONE.
2. Percentages show that about 90% of ppl in car accidents live because they have their seatbelt on. This means that there is 10% that live because they did NOT have it on.
How does the state have the right to decide FOR ME which percentage/risk I want to select??
I've been told that state's governors are lobbied by insurance companies to pass these type of laws. That makes sense to me. I just feel like this country is becoming more and more and more like NAZI GERMANY! Next they will be telling me what to eat, drink, and how many times I should poop a day.
2006-06-29 05:39:39 · 11 answers · asked by Answers R Me 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Jame F, I thought you were suppose to be a bright guy? Guess not. Obviously you are unaware that insurance companies (yes with liability only) have to pay for even drivers in their own car. (was a lawsuit last year of 1st time someone sued their own ins. company.
Irregardless what is up with the 'cost passed to the state'? That is bologna and u ppl aren't thinking here. Sure maybe more ppl get injured but once again, that is what insurance is for and btw, INS is required by law in my state also. So, the arugment that the state pays for more... doesn't hold.
Some of u would rather take about a person's right to take your own risk and let the government make these choices, just to save money? Why do you think the law requiring ins. was created? To make it where the state does not pick up the tab.
Some of you need to move to a dictatorship before you turn my country into Nazi Germany!!!
2006-06-29 06:22:19 · update #1
Once again I'm with you 110%!
What you described is called 'utilitarian'(my spelling may be off on that) but the pt is that we are not a greatest good for greatest number country. That is what makes us great. We protect the rights of the one.
2006-06-29 19:55:07 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 10⤊ 4⤋
Uhh...Seatbelts and Nazi Germany... That comparison frightens me a little bit.
That said, I have two points:
1) Seatbelt laws were passed under the following argument: that if you don't wear your seatbelt, your medical costs will be passed on to society, therefore harming other citizens. That's the same arguements used for many "self-protection" laws. What seems silly in my state is that you are required to wear a seatbelt, but motorcycle riders are not required to wear a helmet. Which seems more dangerous to you?
Anyway, on to point
2) I strongly disagree with "self-protection" laws. In most cases, they are used as fundraisers for police departments. In Indiana, they frequently have "seatbelt checkpoints". A dozen cops hold up a major intersection just to hand out seatbelt tickets. Seems to me that my tax dollars could be better spent. I also agree that, under strict regulation, most drugs should be legalized and prostitution should be legalized. Again, I say under strict regulation for the protection of individuals. It raises tax revenue and it takes the trades out of the hands of organized crime.
2006-06-29 12:49:07 · answer #2 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the government ends up paying for the people who don't wear seatbelts and sit in hospitals for months or years.
2006-06-29 12:46:40 · answer #3 · answered by James 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're talking about a seatbelt here...
If you want to not wear it and fly through the windshield so you can have your say with "your body" then go ahead.
2006-06-29 12:44:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Other people do care if people's lives get ended
Because they are lazy and don't want to put there seatbelt on
Thats like asking why do they not let us murder other people
2006-06-29 13:30:36 · answer #5 · answered by Nick 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because you stupid idiots that don't wear seat belts cause a great deal of expense and hardship for your families and your communities by injuring or killing yourselves. Same applies to bikers who question why they should have to wear helmets.
2006-06-29 12:47:14 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't have the right. But they do have the ability. So they created a new "crime" which they can financially profit by.
2006-06-29 12:43:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, they don't have any right, instead they abuse yours. the following link should explain it all http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/person.htm
2006-06-29 13:16:07 · answer #8 · answered by Truyer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well said! I totally agree!
2006-06-29 12:43:27 · answer #9 · answered by AsianPersuasion :) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Did you vote on this?
2006-06-29 12:59:05 · answer #10 · answered by Badkitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋