The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

[jimpeel]

One last point, and I am sure like all the others before it will hit you in the head like a fly ball to the outfield when the little leaguer is daydreaming about some girl, and glance off without much real effect.

Agaihn, nice ad hom but no substance. Do you lie awake at night thinking these up?

You seem to be saying that it's just big brother looking to cash in on all of us by mandating that we wear seatbelts and they are hiding their motives behind the desire for public safety.

Ah, here we have it, the first mention of "Big Brother". Let it be noted that it was not I who brought it up.

As to the monetary motivation that politicians have for saying one thing while meaning another to line the public coffers -- yes, and hell yes.

I can see why it might seem this way to someone who is paranoid and slightly delusional, as I have known scores of them.

Another ad hom. You are on quite the roll, aren't you?

The real fact is the law is for saftey, both for you, and for all those of us who your stupidity may cost in the long run. If people respected and obeyed the law as they wish we would, there would be no tickets issued, no revenue for government and I have no doubt the powers that be would appreciate that. Fact is they know many people won't and yes, they could use extra revenue, so when people insist on breaking the law, they can make it painful for the lawbreakers, and ease the burden of paying for law enforcement at the same time. They kill two birds with ones stone.

Finally, you actually make a debatable point. Congratulations.

The fact is that these laws start out as something that is enacted for "your safety" and have this small fine -- like $20 -- and from there the fines are increased to sky high level like in California where a seatbelt violation is now three figures. The temptation for politicians to make a buck by taking food off of your table is irresistable to them.

You fail to address where, in the confines of the Constitution, there is any codified authority for the government to protect any citizen from themselves when the SCoTUS has determined that the government lacks any authority to protect any person at any level from anyone. The best you seem to be able to come up with is "I like it so that makes it right for them to do so."

As long as you are not on the receiving end of the government's money grab you believe they have infinite powers regardless of the lack of enumeration of same in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The only thing that will change your attitude is when they finally come to mug you.

Just like with the patriot act issue, I am going to say ahead of time that since I don't know you, I am not sure where you stand, but I think I am right here too.

Interesting. You didn't seem to have any problem when you posted HERE and called it my "beloved patriot act". You also posted this in that same post:

I for one was NOT willing to consent to one sentence of that unconstitutional peice of shit legislation that lets goverment run a secret police state in our midst, and run roughshod on constitutional rights and freedoms.

So when it is convenient for you, you start waving your copy of the Constitution like a flag. Actual citations of SCoTUS rulings on government authority, however, escape your scruitiny.

You strike me as someone who wants little or no taxes. So how then should we pay for governemnt? No maintennce of roads. Less fire and police? Turn away patients at public health hospitals and make them al private? Well I could go on, but as you said before, why should I waste keystrokes?!?

The founders of this country believed that there should be little or no taxes. It was not until 1913 that the income tax was instituted. Are you aware that the SCoTUS shot down the original tax that the Congress tried to enact because they had no enumerated power to do so? It was only after that ruling that the Congress granted themselves that power through the Thirteenth Amendment.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article I, section 9 which was modified by the thirteenth Amendment:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Taxes are for the GENERAL welfare, not for INDIVIDUAL welfare. Look up how much of the vehicle registration and gasoline taxes in your state are used for what they are supposed to be used for. If you state earmarks more than 40% of those funds for road improvements and repairs then you live in a pretty good place and I recommend you stay there. The rest of those funds go into the general fund -- ie: the politicians toy box -- and are never used for what they were originally intended when enacted. That, Sir, is what is called supplantation.

As for your contention that taxes be used for health care, etc., you are wrong and the founders said so long before you were born and started having these wrongful thoughts.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison, quoted in The Federalist Brief, 20 August 2001, Federalist Edition #01-34

"War is common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home: the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditures. [emphasis added] In reviewing the history of the English government, its wars and its taxes, a stander-by, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes." — Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

 

[jimpeel]

He musta missed this one.

Ignored is the likely most probable answer.

The espress powers of the federal gov't are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Anything above & beyond those powers should not be paid for by the federal taxpayer. Including "public health hospitals". That job would fall to your state or local gov't.

When it comes to the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. he seems to disagree with the Congress having unlimited power; but when it come to unlimited power for taxation for welfare he seems to have no problem with that.

Thomas Jefferson saw his type coming many years ago.

The Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, &c., provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”. I suppose the meaning of this clause to be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited. -- [emphasis added]

TITLE: Opinion on Fugitive Slaves.
EDITION: Washington ed. vii, 602.
EDITION: Ford ed., vi, 141.

DATE: Dec. 1792

 

[jimpeel]

the seat belt issue began as "they must be installed in cars, but we would never make you wear them, you must have the option thoo"

That was early '70's.

In Cali, they can stop you for no belt on, they can also arrest you if children don't have theirs on, CPS etc.

I believe that a driver has a duty to the minor children under his care to make sure they use the safety devices. I do not believe they should hold sway over others over the age of majority.

I also believe that in the absence of this responsibility that the driver may be cited at the discretion of the officer as it is not always clear to the driver that those in the rear passenger compartment, out of his view, have removed their restraining device without his knowledge.

As for CPS, their budget is dependent on the number of children they seize and they are very dangerous to individual liberty because of this fact.

 

[jimpeel]

the seat belt issue began as "they must be installed in cars, but we would never make you wear them, you must have the option thoo"

That was early '70's.

Any time a politician, advocate, or bureaucrat says any sentence that starts with "It is recommended ..." watch out. There will soon follow a law to make that recommendation mandatory.

 

[2minkey]

He bailed out. Couldn't take the heat. That's life. Know it, learn it, love it.

Anyone got anything pertinent to say on the topic; or just a bunch of impertinent remarks? Attack the contention for once -- if you can.

The contentions, for those who have forgotten whilst cogitating snappy one-liners, is this:

1) Laws created for your safety, which seek merely to protect you from yourself, are created for the purposes of revenue enhancement and have nothing to do with actual safety.

2) Those laws create revenue enhancement in the near term by gleaning fines, fees, and assessments from those who do not wish to be protected from themselves.

3) Those laws create revenue enhancement in the long term by seeking to prolong the life of taxpayers so they keep paying into the system; because without them there is no system.

4) The SCoTUS has ruled that the government, and its agencies, have no duty to protect any individual from any other individual nor to prevent any crime against that individual by another. So how can that same government, and its agencies, in the face of that ruling, believe they have any inherent power to protect any individual from themselves?

I await your counter contentions.

This oughtta be rich.

"couldn't take the heat?" oh for fuck's sake. yes, yes, you're debating the future of western society here and we're all hanging on every point and counterpoint. you must be a very important person.

no, he didn't bail out exactly, he just got frustrated dealing will the impenetrable wall of YOU.

you post things to set yourself up to make an argument you've made 1000 times that is logically coherent in itself but utterly oblivious to possibilities outside its extant consideration set.

in other words, you post to push your prefabricated and utterly unmovable ideology, to "prove it right" to others in the manner of an undergrad debate team, with all of its attendant sophomoric glee and condescension.

how bout this?

show a little humility and deference. check out some of catocom's posts for pointers.

post a question to which you've no stock answer.

participate in discussion instead of transmission of 'the way things are and must be according to jimpeel.'

 

[jimpeel]

"couldn't take the heat?" oh for fuck's sake. yes, yes, you're debating the future of western society here and we're all hanging on every point and counterpoint. you must be a very important person.

no, he didn't bail out exactly, he just got frustrated dealing will the impenetrable wall of YOU.

you post things to set yourself up to make an argument you've made 1000 times that is logically coherent in itself but utterly oblivious to possibilities outside its extant consideration set.

in other words, you post to push your prefabricated and utterly unmovable ideology, to "prove it right" to others in the manner of an undergrad debate team, with all of its attendant sophomoric glee and condescension.

how bout this?

show a little humility and deference. check out some of catocom's posts for pointers.

post a question to which you've no stock answer.

participate in discussion instead of transmission of 'the way things are and must be according to jimpeel.'

I await your counter contentions.

 

[jimpeel]

So let me give an example of what I mean when I say that laws created for safety are not always for safety but for revenue enhancement.

In 1996, the city of Ft. Collins, CO installed traffic cameras which monitored red lights. The tickets would be mailed to those who appeared on the photo and the fine was $40 for each offense.

Detractors, who said that the photo ticketing scheme violated the right to confront one's accuser, also stated that the devices were installed for revenue enhancement. The city denied that this was true and that revenue enhancement was never the goal -- only safety.

At about this same time, and in part due to this installation in Ft. Collins, the state legislature passed a state law that capped the fines for photo traffic enforcement at $25. The city of Ft. Collins then stated that at that fine they would only just break even for the operation and maintenance of the photo installations.

So first we had the denial that the installation was for revenue enhancement. Then we had the admission and lament that if the state capped the fines they would just break even.

Now if safety were the true goal, what is wrong with merely breaking even? Is safety not acheived at the break even point; or is safety only acheived at a profit to the city? Additionally, even if there were a slight loss in the operation of the cameras, wouldn't that be worth it to acheive safety? After all, those who encourage and lobby for these types of safety devices always say "If it will save but a single life then it is worth it."

So that is a prime example of a government entity installing something for "safety" and then complaining that they are not profiting from it. If safety were the true goal, profit should have nothing to do with the equation at all.

 

[2minkey]

I await your counter contentions.

wow. i'll get right on that! right after i get done trying to convince jerry falwell that the whole jesus thing is a hoax! that would be much easier than.... yeah, fuck it.

 

[jimpeel]

wow. i'll get right on that! right after i get done trying to convince jerry falwell that the whole jesus thing is a hoax! that would be much easier than.... yeah, fuck it.

Nice snappy one-liner. It took you nearly 2 1/2 hours to come up with that?

I await your counter contentions.

 

[markjs]

I await your counter contentions.



















Which will all be wrong, since my beliefs and doctrine are all divinely inspired and 100% truths of the universe. How lucky you all are that I am here to set you straight and show you the error of your ways. How silly you will feel whan you realize I am the second coming of Christ and start doing meaningful things with your life like building the church dedicated unto me....

wow. i'll get right on that! right after i get done trying to convince jerry falwell that the whole jesus thing is a hoax! that would be much easier than.... yeah, fuck it.

What he said!

 

[2minkey]

Nice snappy one-liner. It took you nearly 2 1/2 hours to come up with that?

no, i have real job. sod off.

 

[jimpeel]

What he said!

It took you nearly 2 hours to mimic another poster with a lackluster non-contention. Does your brain hurt after all of that exertion?

You DO have some contentions other than "Don't try to confuse me with facts. My mind is made up" don't you?

I have listed my contentions and even given an example of the very type of abuse that I am speaking of. Go ahead. Pick them apart. Convince me that I am wrong or at least try to entertain some reasonable doubt.

You simply have no idea on how the political mind operates. They think only of money, money, and money -- in that order. If they do have another thought, it is on how to wrest more of your money away from you. To paraphrase a line from "The Terminator": "It's what they do. It's ALL they do; and they won't stop until they reach in and pull your heart out (of your wallet)."

 

[jimpeel]

no, i have real job. sod off.

Making up lame one-liners? You must work for Bob Saggett. He's never made me laugh either.

 

[markjs]

My god man, do you actually believe it took two hours to come up with my last post? Perhaps it's because most people naturally but erroneously assume that others do things like they would.

So no it took me as long as it took to type it up. In the mean time I was out doing other things, work and such, in other words living life. I was NOT hanging out here formulating responses, or eagerly awaiting more of your drivel!

But it makes me wonder if since you think that the fact it took me two hours to post, that you must be doing exactly that! Get out, get a job, and buy yourself a life for christssake man!

Oh BTW, if you are assuming that because you see in my profile that I am viewing that thread, well I probably left to go "live some life" and just left the page up. "Living some life" is great man, I'd reccomend it to anyone, perhaps you could try it too. Perhaps then you might realize that not everything is how it seems. Everytime you think you know something for sure and are totally and unquestionably right, I say watch out, because that's exactly the point you close your mind to learning new things, things like the truth even. "Living some life" is a good way to ensure you continue to learn, when you find that assumptions you make about things without being directly involved in them are often wrong. Open mindedness is a valuable tool. I suggest you try and learn some!

 

[Gonz]

Mayhap you can point out the part in the Patriot Act where it violates the 4th.

He musta missed this one.[/quote]

*whistles to stop the silence

 

[2minkey]

did someone mention bob saget?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR7GUiiKEz0

 

[Gonz]

The unintended consequences of the government protecting you

Three pages in & finally I see the blaring error that has been bothering me but I couldn't spot it.

The gov't doesn't protect us. The gov't can't protect us. The gov't can only be prepared to retaliate in our defense.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Hmmm...lets take a different tack...How is government help linked to obesity and drug addiction? Both can be linked to government programs that give away free food if you want to go on a tangent...

All of the stuff mentioned here in this thread is going on because the public is, in general, stupidly short-sighted.

 

[jimpeel]

My god man, do you actually believe it took two hours to come up with my last post? Perhaps it's because most people naturally but erroneously assume that others do things like they would.

Today's word of the day is "facetious".

Can you say "facetious" boys and girls?

Let's all spell "facetious" together, shall we?

F-A-C-E-T-I-O-U-S

Very good!

So no it took me as long as it took to type it up. In the mean time I was out doing other things, work and such, in other words living life. I was NOT hanging out here formulating responses, or eagerly awaiting more of your drivel!

Never thought you were. Congratulations on that, though. I was doing likewise; I just don't post about it. However, if you need that info I serviced the lawn mower, mowed the lawn, brought in the trash cans, took my mother-in-law to church, cooked dinner, and watched two movies.

But it makes me wonder if since you think that the fact it took me two hours to post, that you must be doing exactly that! Get out, get a job, and buy yourself a life for christssake man!

See the bar at the top of the post? See the post number on the right? Um, that would be ----> that side btw. Look on the left side <---- of the bar and you will see the time that the post was posted. Now, do the math. Quickly now we are all waiting. Get the picture?

Oh BTW, if you are assuming that because you see in my profile that I am viewing that thread, well I probably left to go "live some life" and just left the page up.

I didn't know you could do that -- see if someone is on a certain thread that is. I do know that it indicates if one is online and logged into the board.

Is that what you meant?

As to getting a job: Today is my day off and I chose to spend a small part of it with a bunch of humorless ingrates who don't know how to make a contention; counter someone else's contentions; come up with even one stinking one-liner that can make me crack a smile; or figure out when someone is being facetious because they won't lower themselves to their lowbrow style of humor.

 

[jimpeel]

Three pages in & finally I see the blaring error that has been bothering me but I couldn't spot it.

The gov't doesn't protect us. The gov't can't protect us. The gov't can only be prepared to retaliate in our defense.

That doesn't stop them from thinking they can protect you. Ordering you to protect you from yourself is even funnier.

It is like the suicide laws. They are only written against the attempt to do so.