Quote:And oh how you'd yell about government interference if they did mandate speed governors on cars.  It really sounds like you just get pissy if the government does anything at all to keep people safe. Seat belt laws save lives and the government has a responsibility to enact safety rules on public roads. They've saved mine as a guy who refused to wear one until they mandated it. It's a good thing I didn't roll my car on Normandy Blvd until AFTER the law took effect because I probably wouldn't be here to irritate all you good folks otherwise. Once you're sitting on the interior ceiling of your car and look up to see your children hanging from their seatbelts you get a new appreciation for the value of those things and recognize what they do for the public welfare.

 

Well I'm sorry you're not responsible enough to consider the consequences of your actions until government forces you to act responsibly. But that doesn't justify the need for government to legislate responsibility. The justification to create legislation isn't to protect you, provide for you, or make you act morally/responsibly. The only justification to create legislation is to protect the property or life of another individual, if you want a society to legislate responsibility you're not a conservative. 

 

I wonder what's your stance on welfare if you appreciate government legislating responsibility surely you must support government legislating people responsibility feed themselves, after all many people don't have the good common sense on how to feed themselves so surely we need laws dictating what you can eat, how much you can eat.....

 

it seems to me you're fine and dandy with government so long as you personally see a reason for it.

 

Quote:Running any machine at near capacity is going to cause it to overheat.  

 

Furthermore making cars that can't go over a certain speed limit would do nothing to decrease the need for speed limits. After all the speed limit in a school zone is not the same as the speed limit on the interstate.   And Speed Limits are very much for OTHER drivers safety as well.  Not just personal safety.  

 

I asked why we still have cars designed to go over 100 mph as an example of the absurdity of seat belt laws. If the premise is we need government to do ____ to save lives, why the hell are we not requiring speed restrictions, no one is legally going over 100 mph. 

 

 

Quote:You seem the think that if a person is in an accident while not wearing a seat belt, they are the only one affected.   But that's not true.   It affects their mother and father, their wife, husband, and children.   It affects their friends, and it even affects people who don't know them, because the severity of the injuries puts a strain on the hospital system, causing our insurance rates to go up.   Try telling the mother of a teenage girl or boy that there should be no seat belt laws. 

 

And what about if I accidentally run a stop sign and hit someone who is not wearing a seat belt.   They could be dead, and I would be headed for a lengthy jail term for, at best, manslaughter.   If they had been wearing their seat belt, we exchange insurance information and go on with our lives. 

 

So it's not just the person who is injured who is affected.   It's all of us, in a variety of ways.   That's why most reasonable people support seat belt laws. 

 

the lack of support for a law does not equate to lack of support for the action. Most people support laws because there laws and for no other reason. We've been conditioned to believe without government society would fall apart. 

 

That's why I laugh when "conservatives" try and tell me they stand for small government.

---