Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-19-2002, 12:17 PM   #1
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Actually, the first problems solved in our freedom-loving constitutional republic (not democracy) were to get rid of most of the rules, and let people live their lives. There were vices akin to helmetless riding and smoking back then (even smoking itself, though the dangers were not fully known) but the first acts of government were NOT to outlaw them.



If we had kept government to playing by the rules as they were first laid down, we would not have the "socialist revenue collection system feeding a hungry plutocracy" that we have now (no argument there.)



My problem is this: why the implied dissaproval of our government in its current state, yet the simultaneous embrace of social-engineering laws (helmet laws, high cigarette taxes, etc....?) Do you want to be free or not? This is a philosophical argument: not a practical one. We've obviously been screwed out of a large portion, if not the bulk, of our important constitutional freedoms. They're gone, and without a massive awakening and spontaneous growth of backbones in this country, we're not going to get them back.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 08-19-2002, 12:22 PM   #2
TuneREX
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 47
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Now, don't get me wrong: I wear my full-face helmet even when I buy cigarettes. But I'm not sure it's right to deride the "choice and freedom" argument by reminding us that we live in "a socialist revenue collection system feeding a hungry plutocracy." Think of it as The [Modified] Domino Theory. It's still alive and well in this country, isn't it? Maybe we should fight them here and now, or they'll ban anything that's dangerous on the grounds that it's costing everybody else the down payments for their SUVs. BTW, don't invoke the tired old "life ain't fair, so deal with it" argument. Say it anywhere else, but not in this country.
TuneREX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 12:23 PM   #3
TitaniumCanoe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

John, John, so close but so far. You get an incomplete on this assignment because you did not fully develop your arguement.



After you put the paper back in the wordprocessor, explain to me why we don't require car people to wear helmets. If we are trying to save taxpayer dollars, think about all the brain damage that could be avoided if car people wore helmets.



There is more going on with the helmet issue and it could use some of your witty and obnoxious analysis.



TitaniumCanoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 12:32 PM   #4
Anubis
Founding Member
 
Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12
Default Democrats and Socialists......

The question isn't helmets so much, but when does all the "You are too stupid to make your own choices, so Daddy Government is going to do so" stop? When will they start regulating riding gear, because everyone knows that not wearing gear is stupid, right? Everyone has seen an idiot with a back protector and flip flops. So how long till they start demanding you wear some sort of air bag jump suit every time you ride? Or some sort of a safety cage is built onto the motorcycle? Democrats and Socialists never know when to stop. If a little is good to them, then a whole lot more is better.
And you know it will start in People's Republic of California. It always does.
Anubis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 01:10 PM   #5
TitaniumCanoe
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

BTW, does it cost more to store an uninsured cretin in a vegetative state as opposed to having him running free range? Do we have the numbers on that?
TitaniumCanoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 01:14 PM   #6
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Regulations are good for you

There is a lot of pure BS going on about regulations being bad. Baloney.



For example there are 42 rules and regulations how a hamburger is made, and do you know what? Its bloody good you can buy a hamburger in the good old USA and know you are not chewing pigs insestines.



If you think anarchy would be better go live in a developing country. That really sucks. Stop whining, take the helmets and speed limits etc. its a small price to pay.



- cruiz-euro
anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 01:36 PM   #7
99R6
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 115
Default Re: Regulations are good for you

take the good with the bad........



If you pussies wanna change something, try to do it..... it is a government for the people by the people
99R6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 01:42 PM   #8
richardnixon
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 28
Default Helmet Laws

It would be my preference that our government adhere to more of a hands off approach to regulating our personal safety. Since when is it the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves?





OK. Now that the unrealistic utopia crap is out of the way let's talk about reality. Helmet laws are less about protecting people from themselves than about protecting society from idiots who do not want to wear helmets. As John points out in the article the financial burden of the surviving, but disabled, helmetless accident falls to the rest of society. Now I don't have any problem taking care of the less fortunate or disabled, but that responsibility to take care of those people also gives me the power to have a say in regulating their behavior in an effort to diminish their negative social and financial impact.





In other words...





You are free to do what you want up to the point where exercising that freedom starts to impinges my ability to be free.





It's a very simple statement, but it is at the very root of much of the misunderstanding in this debate and many others. Guns, Alcohol, Tobacco, Drugs, Speeding. I want to state again for the record that I do not oppose the use and enjoyment of any of the preceeding "vices". But, many of my fellow Americans seem unable to adhere to some basic common sense principles. Because of their actions they are interfering with my freedom, twice. First, they interfere with my freedom by exercising their "perceived freedom" in a way that endangers my life and well-being or costs me money. Second, they interfere with my freedom by creating a need to regulate their irresponsible behavior. I can't choose because they have forced our society (goverment) to choose for them in order to protect others.





You are free. Quite free. But your freedom is not absolute. Never has been. It stops when your actions begin to negatively impact those around you.
richardnixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 01:42 PM   #9
blackburd
Founding Member
 
blackburd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 40
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

We don't require car people to wear helmets, but we do require them to wear seat belts. However, (at least in Colorado) you cannot be stopped for failure to wear a seat belt. You can be fined if you are stopped for another traffic violation, and do not have your seat belt on. Seems like a reasonable helmet law as well. If you ride without your helmet, you better not get caught doing anything wrong.
blackburd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 02:12 PM   #10
TuneREX
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 47
Default Re: Helmet Laws

"...Now I don't have any problem taking care of the less fortunate or disabled, but that responsibility to take care of those people also gives me the power to have a say in regulating their behavior in an effort to diminish their negative social and financial impact..."

This is the part that gives me the willies. But the argument is worth considering. You have a trustworthy name....



TuneREX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off