1a. How does not wearing a seatbelt force an un-assumed risk, or directly harm an innocent person?
2a. No bicycle helmet law in Indiana AFAIK. You say you have them, but are you saying you agree with them? Are you also saying you would support making "unprotected" backyard football illegal? 3a. That is incorrect. The yearly statistics for American sports-related harm/death/injury are very significant. Do you need proof for this? 4a. Please stop resorting to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Popularity proves nothing. You ignore my earlier point about slavery. And since you lose by default by again ignoring my challenges to your "contributory negligence" and the related alcohol-serving bartender, I will finish the points. Since you support such attacks on freedom, you should also suffer them. Please turn yourself in immediately since you are surely guilty of your own crimes. Who knows how many people you endangered today by doing all the things you did? Many, I'm sure. I'll guarantee you that you should go to jail for all those times you bought/gave/handed your intoxicated buddy another drink. -Mark _____ mark robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > > > That's easy. "Harm" in the political sense usually denotes > non-consensual damage to an innocent other. Therefore, there is > no harm prevented by enforcing seatbelt laws - because NOT > wearing one doesn't "hurt" anyone. 1a. only if you count yourself and passengers as nobodies. I just dont agree with your reasoning one bit. > Maybe you could respond to some of the examples of potential > future seat-belt-like laws I provided earlier. For your perusing > pleasure, here are some more: > > 1. Let's outlaw backyard football without the proper gear > (guards, helmets, etc). > 2. Let's make helmet laws for bicycles. 2a. we have helmet laws for bicycles. > 3. Let's outlaw all swimming in all bodies of water over 6 feet > deep without a hired lifeguard (professionally trained, insured, > bonded, licensed and certified only, of course). > > 4. Let's just outlaw all sports - just to be "safe". I know all > of them are not real risky (golf?), but heck most of them are. > > It is also conspicuous that you have failed to reply to my > challenge to you about anything you did today that did not > consist of your definition of contributory negligence, and my > question about whether you've ever been drinking with a buddy. 3a. because they are irrelavent. most of the example you site dont lead to wide spread death. not wearing seat belts is a major contributor to car injury statistics. its realy gains the LP no credibility being opposed to seat belt laws. its just sounds like anarchist rubish. which is basically what it is. until the LP can distance its self from this kind of irresponsible, couldnt give a shit about anyone else anarchist viewpoint it will never be anything more then a pimple on the political landscape. 4a. the overwhelming bulk of the population will give the gov the right to stop you damaging yourself. thats never going to change. Vic _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/U6CDDD/izNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
