|
| BLIND AMERICANS |
| Tuesday, June 07, 2005 |
| Dear Ms. Scoppe:
I read your article about seatbelts and have to bring up several similar scenarios.
1. Tens of thousands of people die each year (MANY more than people in auto accidents) from the flu. Mandatory flu shots would prevent this.
2. Millions contact AIDS from unprotected sexual contact. Mandatory condom use would prevent this.
3. Millions of Americans die from obesity related illnesses. Mandatory diet control would prevent this.
4. Thousands die from cigarette and alcohol related illness. Banning such or making the substance abuse illegal would prevent this.
5. Women talking on cell phones and putting on makeup while driving have caused many accidents. Outlawing makeup, talking, cell phones AND cars would eliminate this problem.
Ok, the last was a little extreme, but the examples could fill pages.
Having lived most of my life in socialist countries, the seatbelt law is the first step of introducing laws that limit personal behavior on personal outcomes based on the "collective good". I find that most Americans are naive to the subtleties of law and its uses to advance fascism via the vehicle of socialism. (One of my pet theories is that American public schools do not teach advanced reasoning technique, analytical thinking, etc.) When we live in a nation that proposes and passes in excess of 100,000 laws a year (and that is just in our National Congress) don't think that a freedom you hold dear would become immune to government's natural lust for power and control.
I look forward to reading your articles with much interest! Kindest regards, Jack Mercer
P.S. If we start making decisions about limitations on personal behavior because of its cost to society, then we will need to outlaw many things. As mentioned above, just think about the cost added to health insurance premiums and medicaid/care as a result of alcohol, cigarettes, and over-eating! When I was in Australia in 1972 the introduction of the seatbelt law established a precedent for Australian courts that has done more to restrict the every day freedoms of Australians. If you advocate government control and micromanagement of our every day lives, then the seatbelt law is a good place to start. I would be happy to provide several articles that I have written on this if you would like them. |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/07/2005 08:11:00 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
