From Eric Dondero:Keloland.com is reporting that libertarian-leaning Republican Kristi Noem has a bit of a lead foot and doesn't particularly care for seat belt laws:
KELOLAND News checked the records for all five candidates for U.S. House and Governor; Noem has the longest list of violations, including 20 speeding tickets, three stop sign violations, two seat belt violations, and no driver's license. Noem also has six court notices for failure to appear and two arrest warrants.Disclaimer: Though, we libertarians fiercely oppose seat belt laws, and are leery of highway speed limits, obviously we don't endorse running stop signs.
Noem has broken the law dozens of times. According to court papers obtained by KELOLAND News, Noem's most recent speeding ticket was earlier this year when she was pulled over for driving 94 miles per hour on the interstate.
"Obviously, I'm not proud of my driving record but I been working hard to be a better example to young kids and young drivers out there," Noem said.
Noem says she's always been truthful about her aggressive driving and knew it might come up during the campaign.
22 Bloviations:
Libertarians are divided on many issues, including seat-belt laws. "We". I'm not a libertarian, depending upon the issue, but on this issue I side with libertarians subject to certain conditions.
I'd like the law to go something like this: You don't have to wear a seat belt. But...
No, no, no, no, no. We are not divided at all on seat belt laws. It is a fundamental issue for libertarians. There's no way anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" can be in favor of seat belt laws.
We are divided on foreign policy, life issues, and privatization of prisons. But not seat belt laws.
No, no, no, no, no. We are not divided at all on seat belt laws. It is a fundamental issue for libertarians. There's no way anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" can be in favor of seat belt laws.
We are divided on foreign policy, life issues, and privatization of prisons. But not seat belt laws.
BTW, the State recommending seat belt use is even detrimental, for seat belts have proven to be dangerous and even deadly in many accidents.
It's like Helmet laws. I live in a state that has none, but I wear one. I came from a state that required it. I have ridden without a helmet, and for the most part, I prefer to wear one. The only time I don't is when it's really hot out, 90+, but I wear a full face helmet, so may be I need a different one for hot weather. All in all, I prefer it to be my choice.
As far as seat belts go, I know a couple situations with people I knew that would be alive had they worn them. These were cases of ejections.
OK! Eric - I yield... and stand corrected...
BUT NOTE...
The primary difference between liberals and libertarians on personal freedoms is that liberals want their freedoms at your expense. Can't have liberty sans consequence.
I mean, yeah, seat-belts are a matter of risk management, not a perfect system. Sure they have killed. Saved far more lives. It's a matter of physics. Newton and actuarial tables are merciless on that fact.
I wear belts - snugly - because I want to stay on the gas, brake and clutch and IN the car. It's that simple. And I dig the point that making it legally mandatory is infantilization.
Speed limits are so gay.
"It's like Helmet laws." It's not at all like helmet laws because in the event of an accident, no other drivers are likely to die because you weren't wearing a helmet. People who don't wear seat belts can and do kill other drivers all the time. You simply can't control a vehicle during an accident if your not in the drivers seat anymore. Endangering the lives of others isn't libertarian.
Well Chuck, first off, I wear a seat belt 99% of the time, secondly, if I am out of my drivers seat, chances are the vehicle is beyond control at that point. Secondly, an argument could be made that a helmet could protect a rider from debris or animals (birds for instance) so as not to lose control if the rider was struck in the head by said debris or animals. I've been hit by birds on the bike, but luckily, they all met valhalla on impact, ho ho.
Lofo:
Speed limits are tax collection policies.
I stand humbly corrected. Thank you for graciously pointing out that which I hadn't considered.
I ran through a banana spider web one night and got the sumbitch inside my helmet. That was the scariest one tenth of one second of my entire young life up to that point. heehee
I've had bees fly up my sleeve and sting me. I'd hate to get it on the head.
I don't get why self-styled "libertarians" aren't up in arms about the totalitarian trend toward coercing people into wearing that ridiculous fucking styrofoam beanie when riding a bike, a skateboard, a pair of skates, whatever. When the police are required to wear those hideously stupid things 24 hours a day, then I'll consider putting them on my children. Until then...
I totally get why seatbelt laws amount to paternalism, but speed limits at least keep people from killing others, i.e. infringing on the rights of others. If you are driving on a road and there is no one else on it, there is no reason for you to get a ticket. If there are tons of cars around you, then it's reckless.
I can see why children must be in a restraint though.
I'm a libertarian, and I support seatbelt laws with one caveat: as long as zero tax dollars are used to save an accident victim that wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I say "choice."
As long as your choice to be stupid doesn't cost me any $, I'm cool with it.
This, however, is an impossibility. Who is going to determine, at the accident scene, "this person wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and they don't have adequate insurance - let them die."
Libertarian theory is one thing, but there are practicalities that exist in the real world. Because we cannot expect first-responders to make decisions like this, we must be practical and insist that seat-belts are not a choice; they are a requirement.
Thing is, hospitals have to treat injured or sick people. You can't say, I'll treat you, but not you. If the person has insurance, so be it, if not, they get the bill.
And I don't support seatbelt or helmet laws, but I use both.
I'm all for getting rid of seat belt laws.
As long as those who don't want to wear them sign a waver so that when they get into an accident, they can't:
1) Sue for injuries (even if wasn't their fault)
2) Receive medical attention (siphons resources away from others)
3) Collect disability. Why should others pay?
4) Collect death benefits. Why should others pay?
5) Make a bodily injury insurance claim of any kind. Why should others pay for an injury that could have been prevented?
We don't need laws, we need to have a release signed by people who don't want to wear seat belts or helmets that says that they don't want to have any medical attention for injuries that would have been prevented if the driver was wearing a helmet or seatbelt . It is the right of a person do be able to die and not have the state cover the cost of the recovery. This will reduce the cost to the state and also help clean out the gene pool for future generations.
I lost my father because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. That was in 1966 when lots of people didn't. As a result I sometimes wonder if my emotions get too much in the way on this one because I don't fight seat belt and helmet laws much. Having said that, I think that the suggestion from "anomymous" where anyone not wearing a belt or a helmet has to waive certain rights for harm that belts and helmets would have prevented. I've been a lawyer for 26 years and recognize there are difficulties proving or disproving harm causation and they're not at all trivial but this balance of civil liberties exercises by the unwise and preventing the unwise from further harming others through lawsuits for preventable injury is worth the difficulty of proving or disproving. Because in principle I really DO think people should be able to participate in an accelerated natural selection process by refusing to use belts or helmets.
Since I'm in favor of seatbelt laws, but wish to respect those who are not, my vote is that if you are against the laws, choose not to wear one and somehow have a crash (maybe you're hit by a speeder), my tax dollars should not go toward scraping you off the highway. For that matter, maybe you should just sit in your driveway and not drive on public roads, since they were put there by tax dollars mostly provided by people who are for seatbelt laws. It's like the houses that burn down while the fire department watches because the unfortunate owner did not choose to pay the fire department support cost.
I'm confused. In the disclaimer it says Libertarians are leary of speed limits but do not endorse running stop signs? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Speed limits are established and posted for the same reason stop signs are: to ensure the safety of all persons using the road. When you exceed the speed limit, you may not be putting yourself in danger (although you most likely are), but you are certainly putting others using the road in danger, particularly pedestrians. Seat belts should be an individual's choice, but not speed limits.
Post a Comment