chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (01/16/85)
Some of you may be wondering how everything in the subject line ties together. Well, here goes: The problem I see with all the above is that the governments are trying to stop a certain act (be it people shooting each other, driving drunk, getting killed) by regulating what can lead up to the act and not by imposing large penalties on performing the act in question. In other words, they don't penalize you for doing something but are trying to regulate your behavior in order to lessen the chances of you being able to do that thing. I personally object to this. A lot. It seems to me that a fairer way of keeping drunk drivers off the road is to set huge penalties for being caught driving drunk, not by closing down happy hours, etc. Sure, cutting down on happy hours will cut down on the number of drunks on the road, but it also gets in the way of people who go to happy hours and DON'T drive afterwards. The drinking laws are another example. If the purpose of those laws are to keep people from under 21 from consuming alchohol, ok. Then we can debate on why then they can vote and get shot at at age 18. If on the other hand, the purpose is to cut down on the number of teen-age drunk drivers on the road (which is the purpose in most cases I know of), then I think the law is a really stupid thing. Likewise on the subject of gun control. Make the penalties for committing a hand-gun related crime so big that anybody will think twice about using a gun on somebody, instead of making hard to buy handguns legally. I also think that mandatory seat-belt laws are silly. Unlike the case of drunk driving, you don't endanger anybody but yourself when you don't wear a seatbelt (I wear one all the time, myself). However, I think also think that in a case like Andy Banta's, where the other driver was hurt badly because she wasn't wearing a seat belt, that she shouldn't be allowed to sue for damages, or that the awarded damages should be made smaller. Sueing somebody for damages in a car accident when you weren't wearing a seat belt is like sueing somebody for loading your gun before you looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger. The bottom line is -- DON'T restrict freedom unnecessarily. Instead, make the penalties for abusing that freedom higher. When you restrict a freedom unnecessarily, you're penalizaing not only the people who abused that freedom but also those who took advantage of the freedom and didn't. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/16/85)
Ray Chen writes: > should be made smaller. Sueing somebody for damages in a car accident > when you weren't wearing a seat belt is like sueing somebody for > loading your gun before you looked down the barrel and pulled the > trigger. Bad analogy. Remember, in order to successfully sue someone for an auto accident, you have to show that the accident was their fault. A better analogy: Sueing someone for damages in a car accident when you weren't wearing a seat belt is like sueing somebody for accidentaly shooting you when you weren't wearing your bullet-proof vest. I've been driving for nine years now with no accidents, no tickets, and no safety belts. If I get hurt because somebody else ran their car into mine, I should still be able to sue their a** off. I may have been hurt less if I'd been wearing a safety belt, but I would also be hurt less if whoever ran into me knew how to drive. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!"
erice@tekig.UUCP (Eric Etheridge) (01/22/85)
All of these subjects of regulation fall under the category of things our friendly government attempts to protect the individual from hurting himself with. Or is that our friendly majority? This once again brings to mind the question of what the basis for regulating MY behavior on the basis of what anyone else has ever done is? Instead of creating forbidden fruit, the government would probably be better off sticking to outlawing the simple things like murder and property damage. Driving drunk wouldn't be illegal, but running over seven year old Kelly in a 25 mile an hour zone while doing 70 would be cause for capital punishment. How come nobody ever mentions that guns can be used to protect people from the arbitrary actions of the government and that any self-respecting government would do anything in its power to insure its permanence? I always thought that those guys stuck that in the constitution because of their recent memories of the ways of the British government. Yes?
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (01/22/85)
In article <524@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > I've been driving for nine years now with no accidents, no tickets, >and no safety belts. And few brains. >If I get hurt because somebody else ran their car into >mine, I should still be able to sue their a** off. Only if you are still alive. Otherwise, your survivors get to sue. (They should get a good 'sympathy vote', since you're dead). >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!" Merlyn Leroy "The destruction of the Earth will take place in a little over two of your Earth minutes. Thank you."