4 ms·

Truthfully; I will never understand why the government feels the need to police what people do that only impacts themselves. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fi

Truthfully; I will never understand why the government feels the need to police what people do that only impacts themselves. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine by me; it's your life, not mine! Want to gamble online? Fine by me; it's your money, not mine! What's sad is that people like Ron Paul, who TRULY believe in limited government, are still seen as on the political fringe.

johnny22 16y ago
because we still pay for it by higher insurance premiums or higher taxes. it's not just their life, it has an effect on all of us. If you want to end mandatory emergency room care, that's one thing, but i really doubt most of the countr(y|ies) citizens feels that way. So we're still gonna pay.
tzs 16y ago
> Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine by me; it's your life, not mine! There are two problems with this. First of all, not wearing a seatbelt increases the risk of serious harm or death to other people. If you have to do any sudden turning, such as swerving to avoid an obstacle, a driver without a seatbelt is much more likely to lose control and crash--it's much harder to control a car when the driver is not strapped in in front of the steering wheel. Second, even ignoring the increased risk a seatbelt-less driver poses to others on the road, he poses a bigger risk of injury to himself in an accident. This burdens the rest of us in several ways. The more severe the accident, the longer it is going to take to get it investigated and get the road cleaned up and opened allowing the rest of us to resume travel. If the injured person can't afford to fully pay for his own health care, we end up paying--not even Ron Paul advocates just rolling an injured and financially deficient driver off the side of the road and letting him die and letting the animals clean up. > What's sad is that people like Ron Paul, who TRULY believe in limited government, are still seen as on the political fringe. He believes in limited FEDERAL government.
- tzs 16y ago
  Could the down voters please explain themselves?
  - olalonde 16y ago
    I down voted you because the parent post was below zero and yours not. Usually I don't down vote comments which I disagree with but in this case I just wanted to counter balance whoever down voted the parent comment. I wouldn't have down voted you otherwise even though I disagree with you. Now, let me explain why I disagree with you. > Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine by me; it's your life, not mine! What the guy really means is that he doesn't think government should protect people from themselves. The seatbelt example might be a bad one. But even then, I strongly doubt that wearing your own seatbelt can save someone else's life. I'd be curious to know how many lifes were saved because the driver was wearing seatbelt (except his own). >> What's sad is that people like Ron Paul, who TRULY believe in limited government, are still seen as on the political fringe. > He believes in limited FEDERAL government. Ron Paul is clearly a libertarian and a libertarian believes in limited government, whatever the kind of government.

johnny22 16y ago

because we still pay for it by higher insurance premiums or higher taxes. it's not just their life, it has an effect on all of us. If you want to end mandatory emergency room care, that's one thing, but i really doubt most of the countr(y|ies) citizens feels that way. So we're still gonna pay.

tzs 16y ago

> Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine by me; it's your life, not mine! There are two problems with this. First of all, not wearing a seatbelt increases the risk of serious harm or death to other people. If you have to do any sudden turning, such as swerving to avoid an obstacle, a driver without a seatbelt is much more likely to lose control and crash--it's much harder to control a car when the driver is not strapped in in front of the steering wheel. Second, even ignoring the increased risk a seatbelt-less driver poses to others on the road, he poses a bigger risk of injury to himself in an accident. This burdens the rest of us in several ways. The more severe the accident, the longer it is going to take to get it investigated and get the road cleaned up and opened allowing the rest of us to resume travel. If the injured person can't afford to fully pay for his own health care, we end up paying--not even Ron Paul advocates just rolling an injured and financially deficient driver off the side of the road and letting him die and letting the animals clean up. > What's sad is that people like Ron Paul, who TRULY believe in limited government, are still seen as on the political fringe. He believes in limited FEDERAL government.

tzs 16y ago
Could the down voters please explain themselves?
- olalonde 16y ago
  I down voted you because the parent post was below zero and yours not. Usually I don't down vote comments which I disagree with but in this case I just wanted to counter balance whoever down voted the parent comment. I wouldn't have down voted you otherwise even though I disagree with you. Now, let me explain why I disagree with you. > Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine by me; it's your life, not mine! What the guy really means is that he doesn't think government should protect people from themselves. The seatbelt example might be a bad one. But even then, I strongly doubt that wearing your own seatbelt can save someone else's life. I'd be curious to know how many lifes were saved because the driver was wearing seatbelt (except his own). >> What's sad is that people like Ron Paul, who TRULY believe in limited government, are still seen as on the political fringe. > He believes in limited FEDERAL government. Ron Paul is clearly a libertarian and a libertarian believes in limited government, whatever the kind of government.