• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seat Belt Laws

Your Opinion:

  • One federal seat belt law for everyone in the vehicle

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • One federal seat belt law, but just for children

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leave it up to the states to decide seat belt laws

    Votes: 24 36.9%

  • There should be no seat belt laws for adults

    Votes: 20 30.8%

  • Something else

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • Total voters
    65
Ikari said:
That's retarded.
Click to expand...

Please don't use demeaning terms like that.

I pay taxes, I can gain access to any of that even if I don't wear a seatbelt. It's not the government's job to protect me from me. I don't wear a helmet when on my motorcycle for instance. I hate my helmet, it sucks ass. If I wreck and die, I paid taxes and they can hose my body off the road. but it ain't the government's place to say I can't. There should be no seat belt laws.
Click to expand...

You're payment of taxes doesn't entitle you to use taxpayer services recklessly. That's like saying you can just quit your job and go on welfare simply because you pay the taxes that go toward welfare.

If you are stupid, and don't wear a seatbelt and are disabled and need government support, you're using MORE than your share of taxes - in other words, you're consuming some of MY taxes too. I shouldn't have to support you or your family just because you're a ****ing idiot who can't simply strap in a belt. I don't care if you're too stupid to live, but you don't get to use my tax dollars to support your idiocy.
 
Josie said:
Not comparable. If you choose to not wear your seat belt, you aren't in danger of hurting anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...

But you are in danger of imposing costs on your family and society if you are killed or injured or disabled.
 
Josie said:
Not comparable. If you choose to not wear your seat belt, you aren't in danger of hurting anyone but yourself. If you do meth or heroine, it's very likely that you could hurt someone else.
Click to expand...

um...how so?

how does someone doing meth or heroine in the privacy of their own home, endanger anyone?
 
Henrin said:
Care to explain why you think people shouldn't be able to kill themselves with bad choices?
Click to expand...

Because individuals don't live in a vacuum. Libertarianism and all this non-coercion bull**** would be fine if everybody in the world lived in their own little igloo and had nothing to do with each other. They don't. Your bad choices don't affect you alone.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I know that many of you are going to freak out about this, but I didn't wear a bicycle helmet when I was growing up, and I remember when we were all free to move about the car cabin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember those days, too. Knocked out my two front teeth when I was seven because of a sudden stop. Child abuse, I tell ya'!
 
No seatbelt, or helmet laws.

Two reasons: 1) It's not the government's responsibility to make me take care of myself and 2) It stifles Darwinism.
 
apdst said:
No seatbelt, or helmet laws.

Two reasons: 1) It's not the government's responsibility to make me take care of myself and 2) It stifles Darwinism.
Click to expand...

sounds like you want more people & children to die in car and motorcycle crashes.
 
I support seat belt laws, but I would rather have the states be in charge of them instead of the federal government.
 
jamesrage said:
I believe there should be single federal seat belt law for everyone regardless of age.There are exceptions to that like motorcycles,scooters, babies in car seats and baby carriers (although those things are secured with a seatbelt) and ect.That said it should not be an offense that police can pull you over for.
Click to expand...
I'm having a hard time reconciling this point and the point of your other thread about towing cars/unlicensed drivers because it's the law. If it's the law, it's the law, isn't it?


misterman said:
There should be a waiver you can sign that exempts you from seat belt laws that says you waive your right any taxpayer assistance whatsoever for you or your family if you are killed or disabled in a crash, starting with the ambulance or hearse.
Click to expand...
Too unwieldy.


StillBallin75 said:
Because individuals don't live in a vacuum. Libertarianism and all this non-coercion bull**** would be fine if everybody in the world lived in their own little igloo and had nothing to do with each other. They don't. Your bad choices don't affect you alone.
Click to expand...
This!

Anyway, I don't like that I'm told to wear seatbelts, but I have religiously for almost 30 years now. Why? Because it's smart. I've gotten to the point that I feel naked if I don't have one on... even to move a car from my garage to the street if I want to work in the garage.
 
Thunder said:
so if a State allows children to be in the front seat without a seatbelt, so be it?
Click to expand...

If someone violates a seat belt law should it be dealt with in federal court? Should it be a federal issue? what is state laws and federal laws overlap? A state can only do what the populace votes for. If the population wants no seat belt laws then allow them to vote for it, it's their safety that they are tossing away in the name of "personal freedom." The federal government influences state road laws all the time. Years ago in Tennessee the state government did not want to lower the legal BAC amount to redefine what levels constitute a DUI. The federal government said that if Tennessee does not change their law to reflect a lower BAC then the federal government would cease paying for road upkeep and other federal spending projects. Even if the feds don't write and enforce the law they do have a pull when it comes to what the states choose to do.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
um...how so?

how does someone doing meth or heroine in the privacy of their own home, endanger anyone?
Click to expand...

It doesn't unless there's a child in the house. People don't generally hibernate in their homes.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Because individuals don't live in a vacuum. Libertarianism and all this non-coercion bull**** would be fine if everybody in the world lived in their own little igloo and had nothing to do with each other. They don't. Your bad choices don't affect you alone.
Click to expand...

Never said they did.
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, I remember those days, too. Knocked out my two front teeth when I was seven because of a sudden stop. Child abuse, I tell ya'!
Click to expand...

Ah...you put the wrong name on the quote there.
 
Henrin said:
Never said they did.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't explicitly say that, but your insistence on "freedom to do whatever the hell you want, government coercion is inherently immoral" position negatively impacts the well-being of others, whether you like it or not. Negative freedom as an end in and of itself has absolutely no value, in my opinion. That is why seat belt laws and helmet laws are a good idea. Yes, they are coercive, yes they limit "freedom" in your sense of the word, but I'd rather save lives and not have idiots be a drag on OUR (that is, society's) healthcare system.
 
StillBallin75 said:
No, you didn't explicitly say that, but your insistence on "freedom to do whatever the hell you want, government coercion is inherently immoral" position negatively impacts the well-being of others, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

So what if it does? Life is dangerous.

Negative freedom as an end in and of itself has absolutely no value, in my opinion. That is why seat belt laws and helmet laws are a good idea. Yes, they are coercive, yes they limit "freedom" in your sense of the word, but I'd rather save lives and not have idiots be a drag on OUR (that is, society's) healthcare system.
Click to expand...

So how do you limit the government when your position is to always keep us free from danger? Have any ideas or is it totally and utterly subjective and selective without any sort of logic at all. The truth is you don't, and you are smart enough know it.

The truth is you forcing people to do what you want in the chance, and yes it is a chance, that something will happen because of it. You have any earthly idea how many things that covers? You do, I know you aren't stupid. Why don't you just admit that it really based on a bad and dangerous premise?

And negative freedom is valuable or else the only solution logically is to keep us all locked up to keep us safe.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
No seatbelt, or helmet laws.

Two reasons: 1) It's not the government's responsibility to make me take care of myself and 2) It stifles Darwinism.
Click to expand...

On 2 - I know you might be joking, but should little children die because their parents are stupid?
 
Henrin said:
And negative freedom is valuable or else the only solution logically is to keep us all locked up to keep us safe.
Click to expand...

Nope. You weigh the costs and benefits. Keeping people locked up is obviously too high a cost. But making you wear a seatbelt imposes very little burden. It's a strap on your waist. It costs you nothing in monetary terms, and at most causes you slight irritation. The benefits greatly outweigh the cost.
 
misterman said:
Nope. You weigh the costs and benefits. Keeping people locked up is obviously too high a cost. But making you wear a seatbelt imposes very little burden. It's a strap on your waist. It costs you nothing in monetary terms, and at most causes you slight irritation. The benefits greatly outweigh the cost.
Click to expand...

Then you are failing to keep people safe voiding your argument for seatbelts on a logical standing. If you tell the government to keep you safe they have no reason logical to stop anywhere to reach that goal. Why is your stopping point going to be where they would place it? It wouldn't, as they would be failing at the request.
 
Last edited:
I want to know when are they going to enforce seat belts on motorcycles?
 
misterman said:
Please don't use demeaning terms like that.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. Don't make retarded arguments if you don't want your arguments called retarded.

misterman said:
You're payment of taxes doesn't entitle you to use taxpayer services recklessly. That's like saying you can just quit your job and go on welfare simply because you pay the taxes that go toward welfare.

If you are stupid, and don't wear a seatbelt and are disabled and need government support, you're using MORE than your share of taxes - in other words, you're consuming some of MY taxes too. I shouldn't have to support you or your family just because you're a ****ing idiot who can't simply strap in a belt. I don't care if you're too stupid to live, but you don't get to use my tax dollars to support your idiocy.
Click to expand...

I pay all sorts of **** that other people use already. What's the point? We're not buyer pays on some things, else we wouldn't be taxed for certain things and everyone would buy access when they needed access. Tax dollars support a lot of "idiocy" and people taking advantage of the system, and what have you. Doesn't distract from what I said. The government is not here to protect me from me. I can make choices, and if there are negative consequences to those choices than so be it. But just because you want to use government force here doesn't mean that you can strip taxpayers of their ability to engage in tax funded programs. As I said, that's retarded.
 
Thunder said:
why should I, as a taxpayer, enable your poor decisions and be expected to flip the bill for them?
Click to expand...

because we as tax payers pay for a lot of dumb ****, and particularly collectively we pay for a lot of our freedoms. Being free means that certain people are going to make reckless decisions; but we don't leave them on the street to die. We pay to take care of it, it's one consequence of freedom. Free allows dumb people to be dumb.
 
Henrin said:
Then you are failing to keep people safe voiding your argument for seatbelts on a logical standing. If you tell the government to keep you safe they have no reason logical to stop anywhere to reach that goal. Why is your stopping point going to be where they would place it? It wouldn't, as they would be failing at the request.
Click to expand...

Um, I just explained how.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom