2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Scheavo]

I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt.  For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them.  Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.

Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials.  Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt.  It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.

Well, the justification wouldn't be in making no belt necessary parents change their ways, but in reducing the unseen, opposing pressure faced by parents trying to get their kids to wear them all the time.

It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident. 

[kirksnosehair]

I see this entire seat belt "debate" as evolution in action, same as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle....evolution in action.

[El Barto]

The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.

Your suggested fallacy is a fallacy.  And to suggest that Obama was ever an outsider is ludicrous.  He's a career politician from one of the places that best signify political corruption. 

Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.

Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods,  but you can't drive to the store down here without getting pulled over if you don't wear a seatbelt.  If you're white or if it's raining,  they might ignore it,  but more often than not they're always looking for excuses to snoop around.  That's not to say that they'll necessarily write you for it,  $75 isn't worth the possible court appearance,  but they will investigate you.

I see this entire seat belt "debate" as evolution in action, same as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle....evolution in action.

Helmet laws are a different story.  I can point to a few valid reasons why people should be able to opt out of that one. 

[yorost]

It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident. 

So we're clear, I was making zero argument about the implementation or effectiveness of the laws.

[Super Dude]

Who these days is not a career politician? Besides, I'd prefer someone who's specifically trained to do the job over someone who comes into it with different training.

[jsem]

Except we don't throw people in jail for not following seat belt laws, we don't "point a gun to their head" as jsem implied. Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine.

Ok, gun to the head is a bit over the top. But there is still an initiation of force. Because if you did nothing wrong (not looking at the law here), did not violate someone's rights, and some one forces you to pull over - that's coercion. What if you don't want to pay they fine? I'm not sure what the law says - but whatever the case there is still a threat of violence from the authorities.

But anyway, if one would see the government as a private owner of the roads, and the roads weren't "public" - it'd be up to the owner of the road to determine if there should be a rule enforcing the use of seat belts. Perhaps on a private road, the owners would highly enforce the use of seat belts for the higher chance of survival so that there can be agreements made by the two car owners and their insurance companies in case of accidents - or something of that nature. Or maybe the road owners whats to enforce it for the general safety of the drivers.

The only problem with this view is that we are coerced into paying for the government roads, which is a violation of the non-aggression principle in the first place.

[jsem]

The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.

Obama's mentor in the senate was Joe Lieberman.

Obama was hardly an outsider who would change the system.

[Super Dude]

Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."

[pogoowner]

Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."

What if all the established heart surgeons had shown themselves to be horrible at their jobs, while also charging extremely high prices? You might look somewhere else.

[rumborak]

I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt.  For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them.  Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.

I think it is ludicrous to assume that the US population somehow "wisened" regarding seat belts. The people who are most at risk for death by not wearing a seat belt are teenagers, and that population has not changed in any way or fashion in its desire to behave reckless to impress peers. I only need to point to the millions of Youtube videos of people hurting themselves badly out of bad judgment. Sacrificing thousands of lives for the ability to say "yeah, but at least the Man is not telling me!" is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."

What if all the established heart surgeons had shown themselves to be horrible at their jobs, while also charging extremely high prices? You might look somewhere else.

Except it's not all. As with anything else, there are surgeons who are reliable, and those over-charging ones who you wouldn't go near with a life-or-death situation. It's just a matter of doing your research.

[Scheavo]

Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.

Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods,  but you can't drive to the store down here without getting pulled over if you don't wear a seatbelt.  If you're white or if it's raining,  they might ignore it,  but more often than not they're always looking for excuses to snoop around.  That's not to say that they'll necessarily write you for it,  $75 isn't worth the possible court appearance,  but they will investigate you.

Well luckily every place I've heard about doesn't let a police officer pull you over for wearing a seat belt - it's just an extra ticket option, if there's other reasons to pull that person over. What they do there in Texas seems like a bullshit way to pull someone over, and perhaps a little against the spirit of the bill of rights.

It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident. 

So we're clear, I was making zero argument about the implementation or effectiveness of the laws.

That's fine, but also means your argument is ignoring reality, so it's really not worth listening to.

[yorost]

Well fuck me.

I think you're misguided here.  First, these laws are different all over the place, while some generalizations might be good guesses I don't know more than one or two examples.  Its possible someone did a good job and I have no idea.  Second, before bothering to discuss implementation it should be debated if something can be justified as a law.  Implementation can be done wrong while a law's purpose has merit, it seems to happen often enough.  No merit should means we aim at summary withdrawl.  Merit but bad implementation means we should try to adjust the law.  Justification is wholly relevant.

You might be right that a law has no place if it can't be implemented effectively, but that's a different topic since a bad implementation doesn't imply it can't be fixed.

[antigoon]

Dear God this Republican Debate almost makes voting for Obama seem somewhat appealing.

[rumborak]

Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Well fuck me.

You might be right that a law has no place if it can't be implemented effectively, but that's a different topic since a bad implementation doesn't imply it can't be fixed.

I'm just being pragmatic, and I'm not arguing against anything in this sentence, and it sounds like you're misunderstanding my position, which is probably my fault.

Seat belt laws don't erode my freedom (at least the ones I live with), even though in theory they can. They're about as effective as a speed limit sign, and about as limiting to my actual freedom. When libertarian get to this small of a hindrance to my liberty and my freedom, it overlooks so many bigger issues, and one's which in which the government has a role. There's bigger fish to fry, and it sorta reminds me of the whole "first world problems" meme; if you're really complaining about being forced to wear a seat belt, and it's effect on society, then you better be pretty damn happy that's what bothers you... and not a thousand other worse things.

[Super Dude]

Pretty much. Not to mention the quality of life we enjoy relative to almost 2/3 of the entire remaining world population. And the liberty and quality of life relative to just about every human being who ever lived before the 20th century.

[rumborak]

Dear God this Republican Debate almost makes voting for Obama seem somewhat appealing.

In the current polls Romney is soaring in SC (~30%), Paul stagnated at  ~15% and Gingrich is still on descent. I really hope that after SC this stuff is essentially over.

rumborak

[antigoon]

Me too.

The crowd was raucous tonight. Straight up booing Paul on some foreign policy stuff and standing ovations for Newt on I don't even remember.

[The King in Crimson]

Me too.

The crowd was raucous tonight. Straight up booing Paul on some foreign policy stuff and standing ovations for Newt on I don't even remember.

Good god, people are desperate.

[yorost]

@Scheavo: I wasn't complaining or actively supporting seat belt laws if you thought I was.  I was just discussing someone's question as to why people hate it.

[Scheavo]

@Scheavo: I wasn't complaining or actively supporting seat belt laws if you thought I was.  I was just discussing someone's question as to why people hate it.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were. That you I used was way more third-party/unspecific than it came off as.

[jsem]

Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.

rumborak

What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.

[antigoon]

I just remembered, the crowd also booed Juan Williams when he was asking Newt some non softball questions on race -- Newt's swift rebuttal was what led to the standing ovation.

[rumborak]

Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.

rumborak

What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.

What's the point of him standing there then? Make populist claims everybody knows are impossible?

rumborak

[jsem]

Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.

rumborak

What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.

What's the point of him standing there then? Make populist claims everybody knows are impossible?

rumborak

He answered the question as it was asked.

Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.

[chknptpie]

Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars?   

[rumborak]

He answered the question as it was asked.

Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.

No, that's not what he said. Saying "I will lower the taxes as much as possible" would have made him look reasonable. He said "0%" twice in that whole conversation, and that's clearly the promise there. Which is ludicrous.

In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

He answered the question as it was asked.

Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.

No, that's not what he said. Saying "I will lower the taxes as much as possible" would have made him look reasonable. He said "0%" twice in that whole conversation, and that's clearly the promise there. Which is ludicrous.

In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.

rumborak

Rick Perry's comments on Turkey are among the most astonishingly stupid things I've ever heard uttered in public by an elected official.    They're a freaking NATO ally for chrissakes 

[El Barto]

In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.

rumborak

Wow.  No matter how long I've witnessed his incessant buffoonery,  he never ceases to amaze me in his idiocy. 



edit:  after reading the entire exchange,  that's a damn fine example of gotcha journalism.  The questioner was definitely leading him into a bad situation.  Nevertheless,  Perry blundered it horribly.  If the goal of the question was to ascertain whether or not Perry is capable of diplomatic moderation,  I think we got a very definite answer. 

    BAIER: Governor Perry, since the Islamist-oriented party took over in Turkey, the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent there. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. The prime minister of Turkey has embraced Hamas and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cypress. Given Turkey’s turn, do you believe Turkey still belongs in NATO?

    PERRY: Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by, what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes. Not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it.

[Super Dude]

1400 percent?

Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars?   

Considering Paul and the general Libertarian agenda consists of cutting federal government as much as possible, basically until the United States is turns back into the United States are, it kinda makes sense unfortunately.

[chknptpie]

1400 percent?

Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars?   

Considering Paul and the general Libertarian agenda consists of cutting federal government as much as possible, basically until the United States is turns back into the United States are, it kinda makes sense unfortunately.

I don't understand how cutting taxes, while getting rid of government solves anything. We still have a massive debt to pay - how do we pay that without taxes?

[jsem]

Ron Paul wouldn't cut all revenue. In three years, he'll have a balanced budget if he gets through his precise plan. After that, it's slowly sizing down spending while still running a surplus so the debt can be paid back.

[rumborak]

Cutting down on the govt as he plans would bring so much chaos that the tax revenue would totally collapse, leaving the US with the same debt and a crumbled economy. One thing I've noticed about RP supporters is how they always only look at the outcome, never at the way to get there.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Not to mention the vagueness on just how said budget would actually be balanced, beyond "cut everything."