"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The real question is, should we legislate against stupidity? Let me
explain, manditory seatbelt use, for motor vehicle operators is a good
idea, it keeps the operator at the controls as long as possible, allowing
them to possibly take evasive action to prevent further injury and
property damage. Laws against drunk or stoned driving, also a good idea,
as those people often injure innocent bystanders, and damage the property
of others.

Both of these laws are designed to protect others, the fact that the
operator often gains some benefit is a side issue. However legislating
seatbelt use for others in a vehicle, other then the operator, is simply
legislating against stupidity. I consider bicycle helmets in the same
category, mandatory helmet laws, are only legislating against someone's
own foolish behavior.

Newsgroups modified.

I am very much in favor of the government protecting us from our own
stupidity. Any other view is a libertarian one and is quite callous as
well as being wrongheaded.

We are living in very complex societies and amidst technological phenomena
that none of us have much understanding of. We need laws to protect us
from our own stupidity, or better, ignorance. I am not about to embark on
learning everything that it would be necessary for me to know for my own
safety. I prefer that the government do it for me - and so does everyone
else whether they realize it or not.

You have not thought through the implications of your statement above. You
can be either for or against helmets, but it is pointless to be against
laws regulating their use once it has been established that helmets
protect us from our own stupidity. Everyone is stupid, only on different
subjects.

I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too
many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of
laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another.
Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country?

The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you had
very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota



There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury, 2.
Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws).

You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily
make the controversy go away.

Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves:

We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being told
what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it is for
a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be allowed
to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize that when
things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared for by the
society and thus a burden.

Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the
other hand, should drugs be legalized?

I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely
serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal
restriction of personal liberty is a complex one.

We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many
that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve meaningful
tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People will always go
where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most lawyers are not
there because they "love the law", some are, but not most.

Jeff