The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

[markjs]

Well I doubt I will ever "evolve" into a conservative SnP, and our approach to the world politically seems night and day, but whether you see it or not, the one reason why I have always respected you even when I hate your beliefs, is the fact that our core values are not near as different as the casual glance at it may suggest, and FAR more alike than even I sometimes would like to admit. Believe it or not, I KNOW as people we are far more alike than different. I am far less liberal that my body of work here suggests. The reason I seem so liberal is I do believe in socialized medicine, aid to the needy who CANNOT, not will not, be able to help themselves, and a lot of related issues, and those are the issues I feel are the most important facing us as a nation. I am more moderate than anyone here would believe without the opportunity to actually "hang out" with me in person. There are others here with conservative views I feel the same about, but they are such jackasses I will not grant them the satisfaction of knowing who I refer to.

A good example of "who I am" politically, is that while I was no fan of Reagan or Bush senior, I respected them as men of some integrity, with the best interest of the nation at heart, and suitable representatives of my nation to the rest of the world. Puppet "Dubya" and puppetmaster Cheney, are so crooked, evil, self serving, and such horrifying examples of the worst of "good ol' boy" networking, that they make me sick. Is it any wonder I rail against and feel sickened by their "regime"?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

aid to the needy who CANNOT, not will not, be able to help themselves

Which I am all for, as I have stated repeatedly. The true shame lies in the fact that so many frauds populate the system that those who need help can't get it.

 

[jimpeel]

OK, so what about your beloved patriot act, infringing on what we hold most dear?

You could have stopped right there. I do not like the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. at all so it is not beloved nor held dear to me.

A law for seatbelts because it keeps us safe, and keeps the tax and financial burden down for those of us who are resposible? Sure I can go for that. It's not a crime, just a civil fine. I in no means have to wear a seatbelt even if there is a law, and I will be held liable with a small civil action and a negligeable fine when I get caught, it's just on me to not get caught if I insist on being a moron. It's not an infringement of rights, it's petty bullshit, and there is sound logical reasoning behind it.

Have you read your vehicle insurance policy lately? I would be willing to bet that there is a clause in the exceptions that states they do not have to pay and your coverage is null and void if EVERYONE in the car is not seatbelted during an accident. So how is that a small civil action if you are at fault and find yourself with no coverage for which you have been dutifully paying? Is oit worth your home and all of your assets?

The insurance companies are using these laws as a "gotcha" clause so they don't have to pay.

The Patriot act is the single most unpatriotic thing I have ever heard of, and it rips at the fabric of all that we were founded on, that our forefaathers held most dear, and you eat it up like babies eat pablem....

Agreed, so you can stop railing at me about the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. Save it for someone else and stop wasting keystrokes.

 

[jimpeel]

No again bullshit. The seatbelt law, has the unintended effect of protecting dumbasses from their dumbass selves. The reasoning behind them though is to protct society at large from irresponsible morons from inflicting their irresponsible acts on our communities and our societies, and running up the costs of things for those responsible law abiding folks that give a whit about something beyond the end of their own noses, and perhaps their little households, and all the little carbon copies of their idiot selves they inflict on the rest of us in the name of vanity and ego, and then that they train to be irrsesposible just like ma and pa!

Then why does every seatbelt law start out as a secondary violation -- a violation for which one must be stopped for a primary violation, like speeding, before a citation may be issued -- and then, later on becomes a primary violation? REVENUE ENHANCEMENT!

They always say "You can drive past the police station with your seatbelt hanging out the door and you cannot be stopped for that." when the law is first passed. "It is only a $20 fine." they say.

But then the truth comes out. A few years after the passage of the law they make it a primary violation for which you CAN be stopped. They start "Click it or ticket" campaigns and brag about how many cites were issued and how much revenue was collected. In California, the fine went to over two hundred dollars. How does that fine suit the violation?

Here in Colorado, the legislature attempted to make the seatbelt law a primary violation with the attendant and customary increase in fines. It was shot down but they will keep trying because THEY WANT THE MONEY!!!

Either you are blindly trusting in the government -- which you clearly are not -- or you have yet to learn of the rabid greed which drives politicians. In all things -- especially al things political -- ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.

 

[jimpeel]

Oh and BTW Jim, I've made my case and my point and you are free to try and attack it any way you see fit, but don't expect any further debate from me. I believe I have fairly much made mincemeat of your reasoning and logic, and it's up to you or any other reader to determine if you see my points.

No matter what, all the ranting and bitching about such trivial matters as saftey laws designed to protect society as a whole, and your irrational desire to have the right to be a moron and inflict that and all its intended or unintended consequences on yourself and your community and society, totally unchecked, doesn't make me any less right or you any less wrong!

Hmm. The "I'm right, you're wrong and that's it" point of debating tactics. That can best be stated as "Don't try to confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."

See Ya.

 

[jimpeel]

Because I know you are well, to be as nice as possible "politically challenged" I will say it one more time; ever hear of the Fourth Amendment, or for that matter the Constitution?? Perhaps you've heard of the concept they were founded on? It's called freedom. (And yeah SnP, it is Wikifuckinpedia, as it was handy as all hell).

Yet he is all for the abrogation of rights by the government to legislate stupidity. All Americans have the right to act stupidly as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others. In his world, rights are driven monetarily; and when the arbitrary monetary threshold is exceeded he believes those rights are then expendable.

What he does not realize is that the best way for one to lose his own rights and freedoms is to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others. It is through small, incremental steps that rights and freedoms are taken; and it is usually done under the banner of safety and the common good.

As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

He also said "No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session."

 

[freako104]

Which I am all for, as I have stated repeatedly. The true shame lies in the fact that so many frauds populate the system that those who need help can't get it.

Agreed.

 

[BeardofPants]

Hmm. The "I'm right, you're wrong and that's it" point of debating tactics. That can best be stated as "Don't try to confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."

See Ya.

The irony is just killing me.

 

[2minkey]

The irony is just killing me.

or hypocrisy, perhaps?

yeah i'd say it's more properly that.

 

[BeardofPants]

Bah. *waves paw* Both work.

 

[Gonz]

blah blah blah

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

 

[jimpeel]

or hypocrisy, perhaps?

yeah i'd say it's more properly that.

Bah. *waves paw* Both work.

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.

 

[jimpeel]

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

He can't. He's gone. He bailed out. ie: He conceded.

 

[markjs]

No not at all. I merely conceded to the fact that no amount of truth or good sense will have any effect whatsoever on your irrational and erroneous opinions on these issues. To try and educate the likes of you would be quite akin to trying to teach pigs to fly airplanes. Y'all are just not capable of logic, reason and good sense, in the way most folks are. So why should I waste my time? You have your opinion, it is wrong of course, and as a result try as you might you will not change the way things are.

 

[markjs]

Have you read your vehicle insurance policy lately? I would be willing to bet that there is a clause in the exceptions that states they do not have to pay and your coverage is null and void if EVERYONE in the car is not seatbelted during an accident. So how is that a small civil action if you are at fault and find yourself with no coverage for which you have been dutifully paying? Is oit worth your home and all of your assets?

The insurance companies are using these laws as a "gotcha" clause so they don't have to pay.

I was gonna be nice and let you just live in your "I know everything and refuse to learn anything" delusional world, but since you called me out I will destroy your argument one last time.

OK, so whooptie doo! Insurance companies will find any way to not pay, and even often in cases where there are legit claims they will fine a loophole to fuck over their customer. Anyone with any sense knows that.

So I am sure in your version of reality, which has little to do with actual reality, that the insured just pays out of pocket the expenses? WRONG, the burden falls back on you and I the taxpayer. Once again as my original point stated, the responsible citizens bear the added burdens of the morons.

Debating issues like this with the likes of you Jim is like punching out an eight year old, while it is easy and can be somewhat satisfying as a sort of "guilty pleasure", it certainly isn't something to be proud of, nor waste much real time and energy on, when there are so many things I can do with my time that have an actual positive effect on the world around me.

 

[markjs]

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.

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

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.

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. 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?!?

 

[Gonz]

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

He musta missed this one.

So how then should we pay for governemnt?

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.

 

[jimpeel]

No not at all. I merely conceded to the fact that no amount of truth or good sense will have any effect whatsoever on your irrational and erroneous opinions on these issues. To try and educate the likes of you would be quite akin to trying to teach pigs to fly airplanes. Y'all are just not capable of logic, reason and good sense, in the way most folks are. So why should I waste my time? You have your opinion, it is wrong of course, and as a result try as you might you will not change the way things are.

Nice ad hom but no substance.

 

[jimpeel]

I was gonna be nice and let you just live in your "I know everything and refuse to learn anything" delusional world, but since you called me out I will destroy your argument one last time.

Another ad hom. Keep up the good work.

OK, so whooptie doo! Insurance companies will find any way to not pay, and even often in cases where there are legit claims they will fine a loophole to fuck over their customer. Anyone with any sense knows that.

Or the non-sense to accept it.

So I am sure in your version of reality, which has little to do with actual reality, that the insured just pays out of pocket the expenses? WRONG, the burden falls back on you and I the taxpayer. Once again as my original point stated, the responsible citizens bear the added burdens of the morons.

Again with the ad homs. You obviously accept that the business practice of finding loopholes to deny payment of claims is a legitimate practice.

Debating issues like this with the likes of you Jim is like punching out an eight year old, while it is easy and can be somewhat satisfying as a sort of "guilty pleasure", it certainly isn't something to be proud of, nor waste much real time and energy on, when there are so many things I can do with my time that have an actual positive effect on the world around me.

Again with the ad hom but no substance.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Then why does every seatbelt law start out as a secondary violation -- a violation for which one must be stopped for a primary violation, like speeding, before a citation may be issued -- and then, later on becomes a primary violation? REVENUE ENHANCEMENT!

They always say "You can drive past the police station with your seatbelt hanging out the door and you cannot be stopped for that." when the law is first passed. "It is only a $20 fine." they say.

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.