I agree that we should enforce laws that are good for the saftey of everyone as a whole but thats nit what this law is doing. Can you show me how it helps ither people other than the one not wearing a sear belt? We aren't talking about children in the care were talking about grown adults driving themselves around. There are a whole other set of laws regarding children and child seats. I don't know the exact law because I don't have children but kids up to 4 ft and or weigh under 120 lbs have to be in some sort of car/booster seat. I'm all for pulling parents over who don't protect their kids properly. The fine here is a little higher... I make around 2000 a month and if I'm caught without a seat belt it's 135 I think and most of that fee is the surcharge for the court it's not even the actual fine for the offense. Yes all stupid things that only effect me should be legal. I can own a fucking lion in New York state but I can't drive with my seat belt off what sense does that make? You don't even really need a permit for it. If one stupid thing is illegal then all stupid things should be illegal you can't just pick and choose but it seems like that's what they're doing under the guise of "public saftey"
Child issue dealt with, OK. Knock yourself out (of your windshield?), I don't have an issue with that, anyone can do that if they know what they're doing. That fine seems totally heavy, and I can understand why it would influence your opinion. I don't agree with your classification of stupid things, or that the government is pulling off a scheme, but hey, ok. In the spirit of democratic discourse, after having presented you with my view, and you have presented me with yours, ok man. No further arguments to present.
yes sadly it is, and NC and SC arent the only states, theres 8 total North Carolina on holding office Article 6, Section 8 http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/arti... "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." South Carolina on holding office article 17, section 4 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/scconst... "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." i was wrong about both NC and SC on testifying in court, NC only talks about that, not SC, but in the other states its true in some, like Arkansas can't hold office or testify in court no surprise most of the states that have these laws are bible belt states, but i don't know how enforceable they actually are... http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-un...
You have the right to religious freedom but aparantly it's not cool to have freedom from religion. That's crazy man I can't believe those laws haven't been bright before a court of some kind
That's true, especially for us old coots who remember what it was. It's what this country was all about in the beginning. But the nannies and tyrants are gradually taking over (which was predictable) and some of us who have lived long enough are alarmed by the changes, and alarmed by younger people who do not see what is happening. Freedom is risky, always has been always will be. Animals in a zoo or on a farm are fed and watered regularly, have a comfortable and secure place to rest, and have medical attention whenever they need it. And they are NOT free -- quite the opposite. We could make America much safer than it is. We should have a national speed limit of 10 mph. It would reduce traffic accidents and fatalities tremendously. Outlaw motorcycles, recreational boats and airplanes, sky diving, mountain climbing, hang gliding, hiking into remote areas, snowmobiles, carnival rides . . . the list is endless. [Freedom is] not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the “right†to education, the “right†to health care, the “right†to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle. -- P.J. O'Rourke, May 6, 1993
Humans have a habit of romanticizing the past. I'm very nostalgic about my time in junior high even though it was pure fucken hell. Makes no sense and neither does our psyche
I think you're being a bit silly comparing a seatbelt law to making the speed limit 10 mph. How was the country about freedom for African Americans in the beginning man Less bueno Freedom to own slaves, freedom to buy politicians, freedom for the strong to control the weak Edit: PJ O'Rourke is for taking us back to worse days. A future where everyone is educated, healthy, fed and housed? Fuck that jesus shit, O'Rourke wants us out there grindin' am I right old man
that's a strawman There is no such thing as freedom to own another person. American history is loaded with ups and Downs as is ant history. Using examples of past slavery to show freedom doesn't work makes zero sense -Yuri
Another fallacy argument. I didn't say America is a free country I said we value freedom In case you forgot this entire thread is about losing freedom. Now you are a rational person. Can you tell me what fallacy you just committed is called? -Yuri
Lets clarify something here. First if all, freedom is defined as being able to do whatever the fuck you want. But this is individual freedom. Free society is defined as a society in which you can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as it doesn't take away another freedom to also do whatever the fuck they want. Obvious laws like don't steal or murder come into play here. And the old saying "America was founded on freedom, for rich whites" is 100% true. I never disagreed with that. I don't believe America was ever truely a free country but I still value those ideals of freedom we were supposed to be founded on. If that makes sense? So when you say things like "the founding father's owned slaves" it just shows me you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. -Yuri I do. But this is a two way stress so answer my questions as well please. -Yuri
also this is a loaded question. No surprise you a full of fallacies today The question is intentionally asked in a way to imply the freedom takes away freedom making it a self.contradiction. But the question is willfully ignorant of the fact that in a free society there aren't political candidates because they themselves are anti freedom. Nice try tho -Yuri
I was answering your question, and this is a place we've been before. I think freedoms should be limited according to an objective view of reality. An objective view of reality (USA) demonstrates that given the freedom to give as much money to a candidate as you want, the rich will dominate the poor. A person interested in the freedom as I see freedom<span class="redactor-invisible-space"> of his fellow citizens would be against<span class="redactor-invisible-space"> the 'freedom' to give as much money as you want to a politician.</span></span> <span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span></span> This expands to seatbelts, the topic of freedom at hand. Sure, I can bend, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt because you don't want to wear a seat belt, gorightahead. But I'm not unsatisfied, given such things as needless traffic deaths which have consequences on family and friends, I'm not unsatisfied in living in a place where wearing a seatbelt is bidden by law. <span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span></span></span> <span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"> </span></span></span> Have we not been at the ends of the earth with this argument brother? My limit of the 'don't murder steal or rape' social contract just includes a few more things than yours does. <span class="redactor-invisible-space"> </span> <span class="redactor-invisible-space">Edit: TLDR: I think that unbound freedom results in bad real world consequences<span class="redactor-invisible-space"> and am against that</span></span>
But it's not a self-contradiction - it's the current political reality of your nation state. Freedom to give money has meant the corruption of your political process. It is in your direct interest as a freedom-loving citizen to limit the freedom influx of billionares into political sponsorship. This is the real world that you inhabit
Which is not freedom as I said <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Freedom to give money has meant the corruption of your political process. </blockquote>Only because people believe people can rule over others, which is the true self contradiction Politics itself is anti freedom. The mere existence of government in a free society is a self contradiction So you see your opinion is once again based on a false premise. Freedom is not responsible for corruption in America. Leadership (the opposite of freedom) is responsible <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > It is in your <em class='bbc'>direct interest</em> as a freedom-loving citizen to <em class='bbc'>limit the freedom</em> influx of billionares into political sponsorship. This is the real world that you inhabit </blockquote>I don't understand this Consider this: in a free society you.have the freedom to make billionaires by buying their products. But you also have the freedom to destroy them with boycotts. Our curresnt corporate system is not a result of freedom in the market. It is the result of state subsidies and protection that keep these billionaires in buisness You act as though I personally support lobbying -Yuri