|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... [...] 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! 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. If there are laws on the books mandating helmets, then we should obey those laws. The fact that the laws got on to the books in the first place prejudices me in favor of them. I do not want to have to decide for myself whether helmets are good or bad. I want someone else who is expert in the subject to decide for me. 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 Americans are no longer fiercely independent. You are talking about our forefathers. Today we have grown lazy and dependent and we want the government to do as much as possible for us. We really are no different than the Europeans in that respect. 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. The question that needs to be answered is why American society has so many lawyers in comparison to other societies which are not oriented in the same way as ours. Communist societies for instance have very few lawyers, but lots and lots of bureaucrats. Does this not tell us something significant about the differences between the two types of societies. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark | Elisa Francesca Roselli | UK | 787 | January 31st 06 08:42 AM |
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 766 | January 31st 06 12:31 AM |
Gobsmacked | wafflycat | UK | 63 | January 4th 06 06:50 PM |
fined for cycling on the pavement | Ben Fitzgerald | UK | 163 | November 15th 05 10:05 AM |