Quote: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.

So society couldn't function without seat belt laws now? Your dependency on legislation to maintain a functioning society in combination with your for interventionist ideology would make you one confused libertarian.


I don't have any desire to get into a ideological pissing match with you. Regardless of where you align yourself with politically I disagree with your stance on these necessary legislative requirements to keep society functioning. I find myself wondering why exactly you dislike Obama so much he also agrees with your ideology governments role is to keep society functioning just to a larger degree then you perhaps but the ideology is the same, it's called statism.

---