Quote:It's a fine line I tend to jump back and forth with it.


Make no mistake id be perfectly happy with a volunteerism society but it's not realistic, pointing our nanny state laws regardless of how helpful are all the same isn't anarchism it's consistency. The problem with conservatives is consistency, small government unless you want to smoke dope act stupid or hire a prostitute then damn it we need laws!


Bet you had a problem with New Yorks big gulp law, yet the seat belt law is the same damn thing.

 

No, it's not the same thing. Your use of a highly dangerous motor vehicle on public roads is subject to rules. Seat belt usage is proven to reduce the instances of death during a collision particularly because they permit you to retain control of the vehicle rather than bouncing your dome of the windscreen. I know anecdote isn't data, but when I was a child an elderly woman pulled out across US41on the Bradenton/Sarasota line and broadsided my dad's truck. The old lady, who wasn't wearing a seat belt, smacked her head, locked down on the accelerator and tore back through the highway and ended up inside a restaurant. That's the kind of damage that could've been avoided, and now IS avoided, by the basic rule that everyone wears a seat belt. You can call seat belt laws, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, hell, even driving on the right side of the road "nanny" laws, but despite your protestations they are a necessity for a functional society.

 

And why do you keep throwing around "conservative?" Based on your picture I've been a Libertarian longer than you've been shaving.

---