Well I am not ok with them. I would not call forced safety a legitimate reason.

That is the kind of reasoning we get things like the patriot act and spying on our people from...

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

Sure, if you want to take things to completely illogical extremes.

'Splain how you leapt about 4,000 steps from things like seat belts to the Patriot Act. Evel Knievel couldn't leap that chasm.

Why does everyone around here only think in absolutes? It's always all-or-nothing. Apparently, it's not permissible to be anything close to centrist.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

That is exectly the reasoning for that act. That act is wrong. It line of reasoning is wrong.


Forcing selt-belts is wrong plain and simple. It has the same line of reasoning. If you agree that a person has the right to end their own life then why would you pass laws forcing them to protect their own life. What is next laws against bungee jumping or skydiving because they are dangerous?

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Sorry.....I never have bought "slippery slope" style arguments.

"Forcing them to protect their own life"? That's terrible! Oh no!

Ye gods, man, they're seat belts. Didn't we just have a discussion about not making minor things into monumental, civilization threatening epic battles for freedom, here?

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

Does it look like I am calling for a revolution to stop and epic wrong?

No I am just saying it is wrong. If someone wants to risk their life for whatever reason, be it comfort excitement or and other reason fine that is their choice.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

I believe it should be the law that all cars have seatbelts, so that people have the means to help protect their life, but if some idiot doesn't wear his seatbelt, he shouldn't be punished. If he gets in an accident and gets thrown twenty yards through his windshield, it's his own damn fault. Think of it as evolution in action.

__________________
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
- The Declaration of Independence

I do not think it should be law that they have seat-belts in them either. But I do not really see that as a problem anyway because they are cheap to install and everyone would have them anyway.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

It doesn't have to be a single amendment. It can be broken up into several amendments.



Most of the laws it has passed over the last 150+ years. And, no, just because SCOTUS says it's okay doesn't make it so. SCOTUS has been violating the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison.

You might take a look at the Congressional Record. You'll see that they've done quite a lot in your lifetime.

The Constitution requires amendments regardless of the purpose of the amendments. Congress has the authority to establish some federal agencies but they must fall within the scope of Congress' authority in Article I. There is no constitutional authority, for example, for a Department of Education or a Department of Health and Human Services or a National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, among others.

But they are invalid if they do not conform to the foundation. The federal government does not have any legitimate power not specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Actually, a single document can serve as the sole basis for law and the Constitution does that. Remember that the purpose of the Constitution was to specifically enumerate the federal government's powers and to set forth the form that federal government would take. Also, there was an amendment process built into the Constitution specifically so that it could be adapted to the times.

Yes, I know that you're a government-loving, freedom-hating nanny-stater. But the states were essentially nations when they gained their independence from Britain. They were brought together in a loose confederation that didn't quite work (because it was poorly devised). Then, the Constitution was written to form "a more perfect union."

The howling is a warning call. The sad thing is that non-libertarians are ignoring the warning.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Why do we need speed limits? People should know to drive safely and at a speed consistent with the road conditions.


Well, that's what government tells you. It's really government trying to be your nanny. Part of learning how to drive is learning how to drive at a speed consistent with the road conditions. If people drive at unsafe speeds then they deserve whatever happens to them.


Well, no, it isn't that at all. It's "how I drive is my responsibility and if I hurt or kill myself or others then I expect bear the consequences; but it's not your place, government, to tell me I must drive at a specific speed."

No, it's the difference between people governing themselves and having a government serving as their nanny.

Not personal anarchy, personal sovereignty and responsibility.

Anyone stupid enough to set aside freedom doesn't deserve to have freedom.

Unacceptable to you because you have this perverse love affair with government. You have this strange need to have government tell you how to live your life. You are dependent on government to live your life for you.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."