Squeekmouse
Well-known member
I remember when seatbelts became the law and I thought people who resisted the idea were nuts, why would anyone think that's a bad idea?? Preserve your own life... seems like a no-brainer! But then I learned about WHY some objected. When functioning properly, and worn properly, seat belts can save lives. When seat belts malfunction they can kill you, even in an accident that would have otherwise caused minor injuries or no injuries at all. Some even argue that a seatbelt and airbags are some plot to ensure that a person dies in the accident so they don't live with an injury and sue the auto-makers. (Not saying I agree, but I can see why some would find this objectionable).
So then I thought Helmet laws were totally reasonable and why would anyone argue with that? Then I actually RODE on a motorcycle and learned why. While you are wearing one, the wind will catch the helmet and try to pull your head off your shoulders if you are going more than 20 mph. Your peripheral vision is gone and your hearing is impaired. Meanwhile, if you get in a wreck, you are still easily able to break your neck or otherwise completely mess up your body, and arguable you are more likely to wreck because of your impaired vision/hearing and balance. On the other hand, not wearing a helmet endangers ONLY yourself... so why should the government be telling you what you can or cannot do with your own body? (Pro-choice anyone?)
My point is... it's very easy to argue about how reasonable it is to protect "the greater good" at the expense of a few personal liberties... and it's very easy for those "reasonable" precautions to take one step after another... then another... then another.. and then we've lost our freedom and gained an oppressive government.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Ben Franklin
Whenever I hear some brilliant proposal from the government that sounds like it's All Good and No Bad... the first thing I do is research who is arguing against it and why so I can understand what that hidden downside is... there is ALWAYS a hidden downside.
So then I thought Helmet laws were totally reasonable and why would anyone argue with that? Then I actually RODE on a motorcycle and learned why. While you are wearing one, the wind will catch the helmet and try to pull your head off your shoulders if you are going more than 20 mph. Your peripheral vision is gone and your hearing is impaired. Meanwhile, if you get in a wreck, you are still easily able to break your neck or otherwise completely mess up your body, and arguable you are more likely to wreck because of your impaired vision/hearing and balance. On the other hand, not wearing a helmet endangers ONLY yourself... so why should the government be telling you what you can or cannot do with your own body? (Pro-choice anyone?)
My point is... it's very easy to argue about how reasonable it is to protect "the greater good" at the expense of a few personal liberties... and it's very easy for those "reasonable" precautions to take one step after another... then another... then another.. and then we've lost our freedom and gained an oppressive government.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Ben Franklin
Whenever I hear some brilliant proposal from the government that sounds like it's All Good and No Bad... the first thing I do is research who is arguing against it and why so I can understand what that hidden downside is... there is ALWAYS a hidden downside.
Last edited: