I wear a seat belt religiously, but wouldnt be a burden on soceity if the unthinkable happened. I have health insurance.rotor wrote:Maybe the seatbelt law saves society a huge amount of money after you become a vegetative state after an accident when you are not wearing a seatbelt. I really would have no problem with people not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet if biking as long as they and only they paid their medical bills and society didn't get stuck with the bills. So is it a nanny state beginning or a cost saver for society? Incidentally, seatbelts do save lives.RogueUSMC wrote:I always comment about the seatbelt law being the beginning of the nanny state...lol. I wear one and always have for the most part but...
...it was the first law that basically protected you from yourself. Before that, laws were to protect society from you...
Why are we so hung up though on confessing our sins and telling about all of these wonderful LEO encounters? I personally don't remember such friendly stops in my youth in California where I could swear the cops were former Gestapo agents. It was California though.
Using that logic, anyone who chooses not to carry health insurance is a burden to society and the government needs to regulate being over weight, drinking, smoking, skydiving, being a private pilot, etc.
I don't need big brother telling me what to do. I have it covered.
