Seat Belt Laws - The Latest Ad Campaign by SergeantX

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Seat Belt Laws - The Latest Ad Campaign

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, June 6, 2005 16:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6750
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hardware- Jumping ahead of Rue, I am unaware of any study showing that seatbelts save lives but increase costs. If you have such a study, I would appreciate the info.

Sarge- Hmmm...So, you don't like "government" controlling you, but you accept it if a corporation does. Interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:01 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- Hmmm...So, you don't like "government" controlling you, but you accept it if a corporation does. Interesting.

Well, corporations can't control you. Not yet anyway. (corporate law needs an overhaul as well, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

You do see the difference, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, I see differences, but they are in favor of the government. We have- at least in theory- direct control of the government by our vote. Where the government fails to do our will, it can almost invariably be laid to corruption by moneyed interests (eg corporations) and a combination of laziness and cupidity on the part of the population. We are protected from invasion of privacy, and so forth- but only if it is done by the GOVERNMENT. There are no such laws protecting us from corporations.

Corporations already control you. They control what we see on TV, whether we have jobs- and at what wages, the direction of research, our social structure (where we are pitted against each other), which environmental costs are borne by what groups, and so forth. There is no equivalently-sized countervailing economic force (no international unions, consumer groups, fair-trade groups, research institutions etc) protecting the interests of the individual or the collective, and so we are left to defend/ adjust ourselves as individuals in a mileu set by organizations that have a power, lifespan, and motivations far beyond us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:18 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I see differences, but they are in favor of the government. We have- at least in theory- direct control of the government by our vote. Where the government fails to do our will, it can almost invariably be laid to corruption by moneyed interests (eg corporations) and a combination of laziness and cupidity on the part of the population. We are protected from invasion of privacy, and so forth- but only if it is done by the GOVERNMENT. There are no such laws protecting us from corporations.
Corporations already control you. They control what we see on TV, whether we have jobs- and at what wages, the direction of research, our social structure (where we are pitted against each other), which environmental costs are borne by what groups, and so forth. There is no equivalently-sized countervailing economic force (no international unions, consumer groups, fair-trade groups, research institutions etc) protecting the interests of the individual, and so we are left to defend/ adjust ourselves as individuals in a mileu set by organizations that have a power, lifespan, and motivations far beyond us.

There's plenty about the position of modern corporations in society that gnaws at me, and I'm all eager to discuss how to fix those problems, but it's not relevant to the current discussion. Even with their current unbalanced influence on society, corporations can't put you in jail. And, without government involvment, they can't force you to do business with them.

Insurance companies can write policies with provisions that would deal with the supposed 'social costs' of not wearing seat belts. But it would still be up to customers how much intrusion and control they'd be willing to accept. They'd always be free to look for other options if they didn't like the offer. That's the difference.

Government solutions are almost always of the 'one-size-fits-all' variety. That's fine if you're with the majority, but it leaves the rest of us screwed.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:27 AM

JASONZZZ

I agree completely with you on this one, Sig. The top corporations are have income and expenditures (let alone multinational global fiat power) greater than some nations. Some of them span the globe in terms of spending, hiring practices, consumer influence, environmental impact, etc. These people literally can influence the local populace and governments and *make* the rules.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Even with their current unbalanced influence on society, corporations can't put you in jail. And, without government involvment, they can't force you to do business with them.

You are forced to do business with them all the time- you can't avoid it. And as far as jail is concerned- is that worse than not being able to find a legitimate job and whoring yourself?

I agree with you that the govenrment makes far too many laws intrusive to our individual lives. I would much rather the government turn its attention to restraining the poweful, rather than criminalizing people. But there needs to be some sort of balancing between responsibility and authority.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 10:31 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hardware- Jumping ahead of Rue, I am unaware of any study showing that seatbelts save lives but increase costs. If you have such a study, I would appreciate the info.

Here you go Siggy.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch12.htm

It's similar to the study I found several years ago. Unfortunately in order to see the tables you are going to have to purchase a copy of the article.

A couple of other things that this article brings up that we haven't even talked about in costs. How much do airbags add to insurance costs based on otherwise repairable cars being totalled because of the $800-$1500 airbag cost being tacked onto the sheet metal repair estimate?

Additionally, let's not forget all those people who have been killed by airbags in low speed collisions. One source reports that 22 children have been killed by airbags.

{sarcasm}FOR GOODNESS SAKE LET US REMOVE THESE KILLER AIRBAGS FROM ALL OF OUR CARS! IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT! WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!{/sarcasm}

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 11:01 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You are forced to do business with them all the time- you can't avoid it. And as far as jail is concerned- is that worse than not being able to find a legitimate job and whoring yourself?

But you aren't ever forced to do business with them. No one ever says, "Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

And as far as jail being no worse than being out of work - I'm not sure how you can equate them. Ever been in jail?

I do agree with you that corporations have extended their power far beyond justification and that is a battle that perhaps we'd find ourselves on the same side of. But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 11:54 AM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But you aren't ever forced to do business with them. No one ever says, "Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

well... nobody's there to force you to comply with the law either (at least not in the US - arguably) - but there are consequences - if you are caught.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

And as far as jail being no worse than being out of work - I'm not sure how you can equate them. Ever been in jail?

Depends on what kind of crime or what part of the country. Don't want to fool with Sheriff Arpaio @ Maricopa Country ( http://www.mcso.org/ ) - ever - that's for sure. But white collar criminals frequently get much better treatment (i.e. Martha). And plenty of jobless folks and homeless folks would rather take the 3 meals a day + shelter than sleeping and dying out in the inclement weather. Not saying I'm one of them...

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I do agree with you that corporations have extended their power far beyond justification and that is a battle that perhaps we'd find ourselves on the same side of. But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 3:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But you aren't ever forced to do business with them.

You work for them. You buy from them. You're entertained by them. Your retirement plan invests in them. You have to pay medical bills because you breathe their pollution. You could live in isolation at a primitive level, making your own iron, growing your own food, cutting your trees and spinning your wool- but unless you live at that level, you do business with them.

Quote:
"Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

Very few laws have capital punishment associated with them. However, hundreds of thousand of people die every day- not from natural disasters, but from a system that promotes fabulous wealth for a few and grinding poverty for many. They are forced to do, and they die if they don't.

Quote:
But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

I absolutely agree. However, you will never achieve anything better if you think we can take on corporations as individuals. And by the fact that we are a democracy, I see more hope in controlling the government (with its recognized system of laws) to control the corporations that I do in controlling corporations directly. We just have to turn the government around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 4:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

We're birds in a cage, focused on finding a comfortable perch, oblivious to the owners of the cage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: However, you will never achieve anything better if you think we can take on corporations as individuals.

I believe individuals can absolutely take on corporations (or rather big money/big business) if corporations didn't have government backing them. Corporations get their power FROM the government, so how could be be controlled BY the government? I agree there is a need to change the laws drastically--but change the laws to involve the govt LESS rather than more. The only true sustainable solution is to divorce big business from government, and allow small businesses to take them on in a true free market. When you have poor sole proprietors taking on rich sole proprietors, with no legal protection for either party, it becomes a totally different, consumer-driven game.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:33 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
If we get rid of that law tomorrow, how exactly will you go about assessing each situation to make sure that you would be making the correct one?

Remember, the government (or the law) is itself a body of men--usually notably ungoverned. If I let THOSE men choose "correct" decisions for me, I'd be nothing but a child or automaton. It's time to kick the American public out of the authoritarian home and let them grow up and make "correct" decisions for themselves.

I personally assess seatbelt usage risks by looking at traffic, speed, my mental alertness. Mostly my mental alertness. If I'm asleep, I'm nothing but a crash dummy who can't react and I strap up. If I'm driving in a traffic jam that changes speed frequently and suddenly, I strap up.

Quote:
On the legal side, you actually do still have a choice in obeying the law or not. You'll just have to face a civil penalty rather than a physical one.

If I don't pay the civil penalty, I face a very real physical threat. Fines may look like you have a choice to pay--but they are backed up by bench warrants and guns. How about no penalty at all? Like no penalty if I don't use a condom, or brush my teeth after sweets, or fart over a lit match, or any number of perceived stupid things I might choose to do?

Really, this discussion ultimately has little to do with seatbelts. It has to do with whether people should be allowed to govern themselves or whether they need other people (presumably more well informed and more well educated) to control their personal habits for them.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 7:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can't- It sounds like what you're saying is that the problem starts and ends with the government. I totally agree. But while we're changing government, let's make sure that we change important things- like NAFTA and laws of incorporation and liability, IP, fiduciary duty... oh and BTW remove the "due process" and free speech protections from synthetic persons- instead of cutting off our own protections.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 4:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY

SignyM,

I can't believe it, but I agree! :)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 4:46 PM

WILDBILL

"... let's make sure that we change important things- like NAFTA and laws of incorporation and liability, IP, fiduciary duty... oh and BTW remove the "due process" and free speech protections from synthetic persons- instead of cutting off our own protections."

Damn straight.

"I never ride with anyone who doesn't wear their seatbelt. One of my rules."

SERENITY NOW!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE