Why is New Hampshire the only state with no adult seat belt law?

[Cindy in the NH Woods]

 

Educated individuals know that when liberties and freedoms are lost, they are rarely regained.

 

Educated adults know of the words William Pitt

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

 

 

 

I appreciated this point, and this quote~ thank you.

[Gretchen in NJ]

How many protective laws would you repeal? Seatbelt laws, it sounds like. How about anti-drug laws? Indoor smoking bans? Would you do away with food safety laws, drunk driving laws, and laws regulating inflammable materials in children's clothing? How about laws prohibiting the dumping of raw sewage or hazardous chemicals into the water supply.

 

Surely you agree that there's a reasonable point somewhere between safety straps in the shower, as you put it, and prohibiting the distribution of crack cocaine on school grounds.

 

My right to stretch out my fist ends at your nose. My driving without a seatbelt (Note: I do use one at all times. It has saved my life twice.) only hurts myself. Driving drunk hurts others. The same can be said about indoor smoking bans and some of the food safety laws. They hurt others.

 

There is a good example. Food safety laws. I want the gov. to stay out of my kitchen and my bedroom. I want my family to have access to raw milk and raw milk products. I also do not want the cancer causing inflammable chemicals on my children's clothing. My children's mattress is more flammable then their cotton night gowns. I would rather have them in cotton in a fire then in polyester which melts into their skin.:rant:

Edited June 16, 2009 by Gretchen in NJ

[lionfamily1999]

Did you mean mAsectomy? From my sisters and my experience, there's no reason you're mom could't use a seat belt. I was wearing one going home from the hospital. I have discovered sometimes there is pain due to an udetected infection. If you mom's still having problems, maybe she should ask about an infection. They aren't always accompanied by fevers or red streaks.

She had multiple issues and they continue on, today.

But in some cases they don't have to honor that. I went round and round on this with our local state police office re such an issue. It's up to the officer on the scene whether or not to ticket. However, I would hope in court it would get thrown out.

:glare: She never took any of them to court, didn't see much point in argueing.

[Peek a Boo]

My right to stretch out my fist ends at your nose. My driving without a seatbelt (Note: I do use one at all times. It has saved my life twice.) only hurts myself.

 

except that keeping all individuals properly restrained can actually save others: by keeping the driver in a position where they can continue to drive the car; from keeping people from becoming human projectiles; and keeping people alive to render aid to others.

 

But I still tend to agree w/ angela and pqr. I think that if you are AT FAULT [didn't wear a seatbelt/helmet] and can't afford to be spoon fed then, yeah, you rely on charity, not public assistance. and if the charity isn't there, then yes, you die. And I do think there should be some line to determine whether you were at fault or not. Feel free to err on the side of "not at fault" if there's any question, but seatbelts and helmets are pretty easy to figure out.

 

and while it may sound cold and heartless to say that, I'd probably be volunteering w/ the charity that spoonfeeds idiots for the rest of their life. Just because i believe the public shouldn't pay for it doesn't mean i'm willing to sit back and watch people die from lack of care.

 

one person's onerous is another person's eh. A slave that is well taken care of is still a slave. And the smart ones know it.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Peek a Boo
duh.

[Melissa in FL]

Link

 

All of the 49 states with seat belt laws have medical exemptions to wearing seatbelts.

The exemption is based on a licensed physician's written statement that a seat belt cannot be tolerated for a specific medical reason after a medical evaluation. The most common reason is a temporary orthopedic problem after surgery or other injury. In this case, your surgeon or physician can supply the medical exemption.

 

While this is true, most doctors will NOT write a note for fear of being sued later if that patient gets hurt in a car accident.

Melissa

[lionfamily1999]

While this is true, most doctors will NOT write a note for fear of being sued later if that patient gets hurt in a car accident.

Melissa

Then, that explains why my mother's doc stood quietly by while she ranted about her second ticket.

 

:glare:

[Perry]

Then, that explains why my mother's doc stood quietly by while she ranted about her second ticket.

 

:glare:

It wouldn't hurt to ask. He/she may not be aware of the exemption.

[lionfamily1999]

It wouldn't hurt to ask. He/she may not be aware of the exemption.

Frankly, how aware they are of medical procedures and "cancer" is debatable.

[DaisyMay]

I live in NH. It really is Live Free or Die! There's no helmet law for motorcycles, either.

 

:)

Gayle

[lionfamily1999]

I live in NH. It really is Live Free or Die! There's no helmet law for motorcycles, either.

 

:)

Gayle

Being a bike passenger, often, I have to say, there are times when I really wish I could putt around without a melon protector. (Ducking)

[stripe]

There is a good example. Food safety laws. I want the gov. to stay out of my kitchen and my bedroom. I want my family to have access to raw milk and raw milk products.

How do you feel about milk contaminated with melamine? Watered down milk? Baby formula that has is less nutritious than claimed (pumped up with fillers)? Beef contaminated with fecal matter? Spinach contaminated with fecal matter? Green onions that cause hepatitis? Counterfeit medications (you think they're real, turns out they're not)?

 

Do you believe in complete freedom in the bedroom? Does that include coercion? Sexual slavery? Activity with minors, including infants? Animal abuse? Sexual activities that result in death (erotic asphyxia imposed on another, snuff films, etc)?

[Peek a Boo]

How do you feel about milk contaminated with melamine? Watered down milk? Baby formula that has is less nutritious than claimed (pumped up with fillers)? Beef contaminated with fecal matter? Spinach contaminated with fecal matter? Green onions that cause hepatitis? Counterfeit medications (you think they're real, turns out they're not)?

 

a lot of those could be covered under proper labeling clauses. If you claim the product as one thing but deliver something else, you are liable. If you want to sell watered down milk or stuff w/ fillers, just be sure to disclose that.

Do you believe in complete freedom in the bedroom? Does that include coercion? Sexual slavery? Activity with minors, including infants? Animal abuse? Sexual activities that result in death (erotic asphyxia imposed on another, snuff films, etc)?

 

freedom means freedom for all individuals: your right to extend your fist ends at another person's nose [or in this case....uh, never mind...] and requires mutualconsent, so sexual slavery and coercion would not be tolerated. But it would be up to the victims to file suit about coercion. Minors and infants are covered under abuse laws because they are not able to consent. Consenting adults who engage in sexual practices that result in their death will win the Darwin award that year. Animals --I'm open for discussion about that. ;)

[Gretchen in NJ]

How do you feel about milk contaminated with melamine? Watered down milk? Baby formula that has is less nutritious than claimed (pumped up with fillers)? Beef contaminated with fecal matter? Spinach contaminated with fecal matter? Green onions that cause hepatitis? Counterfeit medications (you think they're real, turns out they're not)?

 

Do you believe in complete freedom in the bedroom? Does that include coercion? Sexual slavery? Activity with minors, including infants? Animal abuse? Sexual activities that result in death (erotic asphyxia imposed on another, snuff films, etc)?

 

As I said before, "My right to stretch out my fist ends at your nose. All of your examples hurt others. In other words, the fist extends past your nose. Hence, they really don't factor into this discussion.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Gretchen in NJ

[Lucy the Valiant]

I live in New Hampshire. :D I wear my seat belt, but I don't think it should be a law. (FWIW, I think the "law" for kids' car seats is utterly unrealistic, too, and my kids will be riding in a 5-point-harness as long as they fit.)

 

But since we're talking about the great state of New Hampshire . . . did you know that we are the THIRD largest representative body in the ENTIRE English-speaking world? :D (We come in right behind the U. S. Congress and Britain's Parliament.)

 

And my town is one of the LAST 10 REMAINING communities in the ENTIRE United States to implement public kindergarten? Our first-ever-offered kindergarten begins 2010-2011 school year (I'm not bragging on this, but I think it's interesting).

 

:D I love New Hampshire!

[phathui5]

It's strikes me as very sad that being seat-belt-free is the sort of "freedom" for which people are willing to die. It further seems that people have lost all sense of what true "freedom" is. I have a hard time swallowing that smashing your head through the windshield is the way to show that you are a person of liberty.

 

It's not about not wearing a seatbelt. It's about understanding that I'm old enough to do it myself, without the government threatening me if I don't.

[phathui5]

The person not wearing the seat belt should then be responsible for their own expenses and death. It was a choice they made. It would include a radical change in laws, and it won't happen, but it would be a step twoard a glorious return to freedom.

 

Yup. Like I learned from Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. With the power to choose for yourself comes the responsibility to not be stupid.

[KingM]

But since we're talking about the great state of New Hampshire . . . did you know that we are the THIRD largest representative body in the ENTIRE English-speaking world? :D (We come in right behind the U. S. Congress and Britain's Parliament.)

 

The Indian Parliament is about the size of the U.S. House of Representatives and I believe conducts its business in English.

 

(And this is not a criticism of NH. I live in a neighboring state and feel a definite solidarity with yours.)

[phathui5]

How do you feel about milk contaminated with melamine? Watered down milk? Baby formula that has is less nutritious than claimed (pumped up with fillers)? Beef contaminated with fecal matter? Spinach contaminated with fecal matter? Green onions that cause hepatitis? Counterfeit medications (you think they're real, turns out they're not)?

 

That stuff's already illegal and the laws against them didn't stop them from happening.

[skaterbabs]

I'm thinking a new motto is in order:

 

Live Free and/or Die :D

 

In occupant safety fields, NH is known as the "Live Free and Die State" for a very good reason. They have the highest automotive death rate in the country. That's saying something when you know that the number one cause of unintentional death and serious injury to people from age 3 through age 33 in the entire US is auto crashes.

 

Unbelted adults in the rear seats of a car can launch over the heads of the car seats and kill passengers in the forward seats in a severe collision. That's MY problem with the lack of the law.

 

In simple terms, weight times speed equals stopping force. So a 180 lb man at a mere 30 miles an hour will strike another passenger with approximately 5400 lbs of force.

 

What always amazes me is when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense.

 

Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty".

 

Bill

 

Not only do they save lives, they prevent injuries and save the local, state and federal governments a great deal of money. Which in the end saves the TAXPAYERS a great deal of money. Sadly, that's generally more important than the life cost. Never mind the MENTAL cost to first responders and witnesses to these crashes. That's never even considered. Let's not think about the guy whose job it is to scrape your brains off the pavement after you go boom.

 

:rant: :banghead: :cursing:

[Kathy in MD]

.... Never mind the MENTAL cost to first responders and witnesses to these crashes. That's never even considered. Let's not think about the guy whose job it is to scrape your brains off the pavement after you go boom.

 

:rant: :banghead: :cursing:

 

It's not only the first responders who have to view the splattered brains all over the accident site. I used to work for a consulting engineer who had to inspect an accident site AFTER the first responders had cleaned it up. The brains were still all over the bridge abuttment. Bad accidents have a lasting impact on the people who are trying to rescue people, or in my ex-boss's case, design safer roads.

[jujsky]

And my town is one of the LAST 10 REMAINING communities in the ENTIRE United States to implement public kindergarten? Our first-ever-offered kindergarten begins 2010-2011 school year (I'm not bragging on this, but I think it's interesting).

 

:D I love New Hampshire!

 

Are you in Hudson? I'm in Nashua, and I was following the whole Hudson K issue in The Telegraph. I had some dance class moms who didn't know up until a couple months ago if their girls would even have a public K to go to, or if they'd have to dole out the $$$ for private. Crazy! Nashua has public K, but depending on where you are in the district, your child either goes to 1/2 day or full-day. The parent can't decide which -- it's all on where you live.

 

Love the school systems here! :rolleyes:

[KidsHappen]

I personally find it weird that a law is written to tell adults to wear a seatbelt.

 

I absolutely agree. Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was NO seltbelt laws. I personally am not too happy about the government intrusion.

[TravelingChris]

I like both the seatbelt laws and the motorcycle helmet laws. I have buckeld my seatbelt before there were laws and continue to do so. However, there are enough ignorant people out there who only do so because of the law. They don't understand physics, they don't understand statistics, they have an overly optimistic view, whatever. They need the laws to keep them safe and to keep others safe. That unbelted adult passengar can very easily end up killing a child in that car who didn't have any choice in the matter. As others have pointed out, the costs are not only financial to the rest of us. They also include extended traffic jams when someone dies at the scene of an accident whereas if they were wearing their seatbelt the accident wouldn't have required the amount of investigation a fatal accidents causes. THere are the emotional costs of responders and witnesses. There are the potentially worse treatment of someone at the ER who has a less onvious injury or disease who is waiting while they are trying to save the life of an unseatbelted person. THere is the costs of families losing their breadwinners. THere are so many costs and the only price is not being allowed to follow your ignorant choice. It is a clear choice to me.

[skaterbabs]

It's not only the first responders who have to view the splattered brains all over the accident site. I used to work for a consulting engineer who had to inspect an accident site AFTER the first responders had cleaned it up. The brains were still all over the bridge abuttment. Bad accidents have a lasting impact on the people who are trying to rescue people, or in my ex-boss's case, design safer roads.

 

 

Exactly. In my training we had to see photos and videos of what happens to unbelted passengers. Not pretty. God forbid I need to see that in real life, and neither does anyone else. I have friends and collegues who are firefighters and EMTs. Recently one of them responded to a crash in which an infant was thrown from the vehicle and died. She's still processing that and will be for a very long time. Those images NEVER leave.

 

I like both the seatbelt laws and the motorcycle helmet laws. I have buckeld my seatbelt before there were laws and continue to do so. However, there are enough ignorant people out there who only do so because of the law. They don't understand physics, they don't understand statistics, they have an overly optimistic view, whatever. They need the laws to keep them safe and to keep others safe. That unbelted adult passengar can very easily end up killing a child in that car who didn't have any choice in the matter. As others have pointed out, the costs are not only financial to the rest of us. They also include extended traffic jams when someone dies at the scene of an accident whereas if they were wearing their seatbelt the accident wouldn't have required the amount of investigation a fatal accidents causes. THere are the emotional costs of responders and witnesses. There are the potentially worse treatment of someone at the ER who has a less onvious injury or disease who is waiting while they are trying to save the life of an unseatbelted person. THere is the costs of families losing their breadwinners. THere are so many costs and the only price is not being allowed to follow your ignorant choice. It is a clear choice to me.

 

The people who don't understand really are the minority unfortunately. The majority simply don't care. They really don't care what the cost when they don't buckle. Whatever excuse they have for not buckling up, it is just that. An excuse. They have this idea that it won't happen to them. They're immune to the laws of physics, their kids are immune to the laws of physics.

 

The laws are NOT written for the parent who actually cares to research and keep their child(ren) safe. It's written for the parents who chose to let the law decide for them, and the parent who will do no more than the law requires. By their very nature, the occupant protection laws are woefully inadequate, and in many places the laws that are in place are simply not enforced.

 

I spend a great deal of my professional time explaing to parents that just because it's LEGAL does NOT mean that it is SAFE.

 

It's LEGAL for your 22 lb, 12 month old infant to be forward facing. Just know that if you do this, he is five hundred percent more likely to suffer a serious (potentially fatal) injury in a crash. Children under 35 lbs have no business forward facing under any cercumstances, and that limit is only because it's the most common RF limit on US seats. Graco now has a seat that RF to 40 lbs, which means we can tell the parents of those 35 lb 18 mo olds that YES, you CAN continue to rear face and not risk internal decapitation.

 

It's LEGAL (in most states) for your 30 lb 3 yo to be in a belt positioning booster. Some states require 4 years and 40 lbs, which is a minute improvement. Never mind that research suggests that a five point harness through age six is the better option and there are at least three seats on the market with 80 lb limits on the harness, making this not a difficult thing to accomplish at all. Boosters do NOT restrain your child, they simply boost them up so that the adult seatbelt fits better. And not all boosters do that well, especially on smaller kids.

 

It's LEGAL in some states for four or six year olds to use just the adult seatbelt. A few states require eight years, but even that is not enough. The iliac crest (hips) don't develop until puberty. Children under that age, even if they DO fit the seatbelt (unusual before about 10 or 11 years old) simply do not have the rigid skeletal structure needed to prevent them from submarining under the seatbelt.

 

 

Those who depend on the law to tell them when it's safe to __________ are LUCKY if they do not suffer the results of it. But NOT having the laws isn't the answer - they're in place to prevent even more serious injuries from those who just don't care.

[AndyJoy]

An unbelted passenger is a danger to not only himself, but EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CAR. He becomes a human projectile in an accident.

 

When I was 12, I was riding in a van on a church trip with a group of adults. The driver teasingly reminded us, "All right, everyone, time to buckle up!" The two ladies behind me did not buckle up, and spent the next 5 minutes justifying themselves (e.g. you can get internal injuries from seatbelts at low speeds, they're uncomfortable, I'm an adult and can make my own decisions) Keep in mind, we were traveling at freeway speeds. I finally turned around and said, "Well, if you're not going to wear your seatbelts, could you at least trade seats with me so you don't decapitate me as you fly through the windshield?" That shut them up and they buckled up!:lol:

[KidsHappen]

Well, I guess you're "free" to follow the law. Woohoo freedom. How about the freedom to be an idget, yes, even an idget whose head goes through a windshield?

 

Time to regulate food and exercise then.

 

Don't forget alcohol and cigarettes. Non monogamous sex. If you start regulating people's behavior to protect society then it is not very far down the road before the governement is enforcing PS for the good of society and only a little bit farther to eugenics.

[KingM]

Don't forget alcohol and cigarettes. Non monogamous sex. If you start regulating people's behavior to protect society then it is not very far down the road before the governement is enforcing PS for the good of society and only a little bit farther to eugenics.

 

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

[mommy2be]

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

 

:confused: Erg... not trying to do so myself - but it seems like you're almost trying to start something...?

 

I think she was simply saying that the government is trying to control more and more - which means we have less and less right to make personal choices... What does gay marriage specifically have to do with anything? You could have asked if she would allow legal drugs, legal prostitution, nudity, etc... any number of things.

 

I'm going to leave it at that... again, not trying to be rude but just kind of confused as to where that question came from...

[Peek a Boo]

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

 

that's exactly what a LOT of people would allow for the reasons Kidshappen stated.

 

I'm guessing --based on her previous posts and worldview that she's shared--her answer would be a simple "sure." :)

 

[kidshappen --feel free to slap me down hard if i'm completely wrong....]

[chaik76]

Well, at least you have a certain consistency.

This truly made me laugh...only because it's something I hear often on the three forums that I am active on!

[chaik76]

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

This doesn't particularly have to do with anything on this thread...but yes, I support civil union for anyone who wants to be connected in that way, whether they be gay, polygamists, a heterosexual couple, what have you.

 

I believe that civil union is a totally separate thing from a church/religious marriage. For instance, if you belong to our church you could not be married as a gay couple. I support the rights of churches to set their own standards. I believe the government should offer equal rights to all (before someone asks, no I don't believe in child unions or bestiality).

[KidsHappen]

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

Huh? :confused: I didn't mention gay marriage at all so I am not really sure where you are going with this. What exactly would you like to know and how does it relate to waht I said. Not trying to be snarky, just want to be sure that I answer the questions correctly for you.

[KidsHappen]

that's exactly what a LOT of people would allow for the reasons Kidshappen stated.

 

I'm guessing --based on her previous posts and worldview that she's shared--her answer would be a simple "sure." :)

 

 

[kidshappen --feel free to slap me down hard if i'm completely wrong....]

 

You've pegged me right on girl. Libertarian though and though and proud of it.

[skaterbabs]

As someone else mentioned, your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. Your right to NOT where your seatbelt ends with my right to NOT pay for your orphans to be raised by the state or your lifetime of disability care. Your right to NOT where a seatbelt ends with the first responder's right to NOT suffer PTSD from seeing your brains all over the pavement.

[KingM]

Huh? :confused: I didn't mention gay marriage at all so I am not really sure where you are going with this. What exactly would you like to know and how does it relate to waht I said. Not trying to be snarky, just want to be sure that I answer the questions correctly for you.

 

I'm just curious as to whether people who say that one shouldn't regulate private behavior are also tolerant (or allowing, at least) of alternate lifestyles. It sounds like you are. You had expressed a libertarian perspective and I was wondering how far it extended.

 

One thing I find very interesting about this board is that there is such a vast difference in opinion on some political and religious subjects. Most places that I have spent time on either offer no opinions (for example, a ski forum I'm on, where this stuff never comes up), or a certain group consensus begins to take hold.

[KingM]

As someone else mentioned, your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. Your right to NOT where your seatbelt ends with my right to NOT pay for your orphans to be raised by the state or your lifetime of disability care.

 

This is why I think the law should force compliance on the seat belt issue. Society has already made the decision that it will fund lifetime disability and keep one's orphans from starving in the gutter. Therefore it is entirely consistent to require minimal protection against this sort of actuality.

[Spy Car]

This is why I think the law should force compliance on the seat belt issue. Society has already made the decision that it will fund lifetime disability and keep one's orphans from starving in the gutter. Therefore it is entirely consistent to require minimal protection against this sort of actuality.

 

I whole-heartedly agree. And I don't buy the "slippery slope" arguments of those who would suggest having seat-belt laws would put us on a road to the gulag, or make us adopters of the "credo" of slaves.

 

Do get used to the William Penn quote. Anytime there is sensible legislation discussed you can bet Mr Penn will make an appearance ;)

 

Maybe some people are easily enslaved?

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

This is why I think the law should force compliance on the seat belt issue. Society has already made the decision that it will fund lifetime disability and keep one's orphans from starving in the gutter. Therefore it is entirely consistent to require minimal protection against this sort of actuality.

 

I believe that society needs to correct that error instead of compounding it w/ another error.

 

Your right to NOT where a seatbelt ends with the first responder's right to NOT suffer PTSD from seeing your brains all over the pavement.

 

First Responders willingly train for and put themselves in a situation that they know will expose them to severe emotional trauma from seeing the results of all kinds of horrific emergencies, both accidental and intentional.

 

Taxes are taken at the point of a gun.

 

The issue of where undue force is being used is quite clear: the analogy of where rights begin/end does not hold water in this instance.

[stripe]

So someone whose parents are, sorry, were idiots should starve? I guess that's a case of the sins of the father being visited upon the sons, eh?

[Peek a Boo]

So someone whose parents are, sorry, were idiots should starve? I guess that's a case of the sins of the father being visited upon the sons, eh?

 

Of course not.

There are, have always been, and will always be people who will set up charities to take care of people from all different idiocy groups.

 

The difference here is whether those orphans or paraplegics sucking their food out of a straw should be taken care by forcing everyone to pay into a horribly managed fund or directed to a charity that will help them out. I think i already touched on that in an earlier post in this thread tho....

 

eta: yes i did-#54.

[Perry]

Of course not.

There are, have always been, and will always be people who will set up charities to take care of people from all different idiocy groups.

 

The difference here is whether those orphans or paraplegics sucking their food out of a straw should be taken care by forcing everyone to pay into a horribly managed fund or directed to a charity that will help them out. I think i already touched on that in an earlier post in this thread tho....

 

eta: yes i did-#54.

 

Do you really think there would be enough money for that? What would happen if there wasn't?

[Peek a Boo]

Do you really think there would be enough money for that? What would happen if there wasn't?

 

Do you really think there's enough money for how stuff is working NOW?

 

Do you realize how much money people GIVE AWAY every year?

 

The answer is irrelevant in the consideration of who gets to force whom to do whatever. But I'm not speaking from a "how can we make this work in the society we already have" POV, but a more general 'what would be best for everyone" POV.

 

And as I've already answered, I'd be willing to do what i could to help.

[Peek a Boo]

Do you really think there would be enough money for that? What would happen if there wasn't?

 

or here ya go:

 

everyone who would believes we NEED a mandatory tax system can sign up to have their wages regularly garnished and distributed according to pre-set standards.

 

The rest of us will set up charities funded by voluntary giving that can be adjusted as we want.

 

We'll have a contest and see who's doing best in 3 years.

:lurk5:

[Denisemomof4]

I'm sure by now someone has posted that our motto is "Live Free or Die" so maybe they give the freedom of choice?

 

I don't know, but I do wear my seatbelt all the time. I used to hate to wear one because it wrinkled my clothes :001_huh: but someone once told me it was better to wrinkle my clothes than wrinkle my face. Have worn one since.

:001_smile:

[Spy Car]

Thus far in the history of the world...

 

The number of civilizations that were built and sustained by a system of taxation: 100%

 

The number of civilizations that were built and sustained solely on charitable contributions (and no taxes): Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

Civilizations NEED taxes in order to exist.

 

As the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "Taxation is the price one pays for Civilization".

 

Bill

[Lux Et Veritas Academy]

Because we have to live up to our motto of Live Free or Die! And this represents the Die Category!

[lionfamily1999]

Does this mean you would allow gay marriage?

I don't believe that is a federal issue at all. I do not believe the Federal Government should be adding things to the Constitution in regard to this at all.

 

As far as states go, since marraige IS something under state control, I'd say it's up to the states. I do not believe states should have laws AGAINST homosexuals living together or having consentual s*x.

 

Personally, I think coming up with some state sanctioned unions, and removing marraige from the terms, for all people, would be the best way to go. But then, I also think that these unions should have very few requirements, except they should be entered into voluntarily and the people should be in agreement that the union will last for X number of years. Let churches handle "marraige."

[Peek a Boo]

Thus far in the history of the world...

 

The number of civilizations that were built and sustained by a system of taxation: 100%

 

The number of civilizations that were built and sustained solely on charitable contributions (and no taxes): Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

Civilizations NEED taxes in order to exist.

 

As the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "Taxation is the price one pays for Civilization".

 

Bill

 

Yeah... and the best argument for the death penalty is that once you kill the bad guy, he will never ever EVER hurt anyone ever again.

 

Many civilizations were [and some still are] sustained w/ a big slavery component. We are slowly learning that just cuz "we've always done it that way before and it works VERY well" doesn't mean it is the best or most civilized way to accomplish something.

 

Just because something "works" doesn't mean it is RIGHT. Oliver Wendell Holmes certainly isn't objective in discussing the concept of natural rights. ;)

 

Civilization has a looong way to go.

I'm really hoping that our progress in this world is not limited to what has happened thus far.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Kathy in MD]

:confused: Erg... not trying to do so myself - but it seems like you're almost trying to start something...?

 

I think she was simply saying that the government is trying to control more and more - which means we have less and less right to make personal choices... What does gay marriage specifically have to do with anything? You could have asked if she would allow legal drugs, legal prostitution, nudity, etc... any number of things.

 

I'm going to leave it at that... again, not trying to be rude but just kind of confused as to where that question came from...

 

I understand where she's coming from. There are a LOT of people who want freedom for everything **except** their strong beliefs. You'll find them on both ends of the political spectrum and even in the middle. And they'll have good solid reasons for it.

 

I sometimes think no one is exempt from this problem.

[Kathy in MD]

As someone else mentioned, your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. Your right to NOT where your seatbelt ends with my right to NOT pay for your orphans to be raised by the state or your lifetime of disability care. Your right to NOT where a seatbelt ends with the first responder's right to NOT suffer PTSD from seeing your brains all over the pavement.

 

But the problem remains that we WILL pay for the orphans to be raised and we WILL pay for the lifetime of disability payments and the first responders WILL suffer PTSD. That's why we have a lot of freedom infringing laws.

 

So some would say let the orphans and first responders suffer. But I don't want to live in that sort of society. Does anyone truly want to?