Vic, Some people look to government for guidance regarding dietary concerns. Since the government doesn't (yet) regulate the amount of fat we can eat, that is a clear signal to some people that it's ok to eat as much fat as one wants. Therefore, it's acceptable for the government to regulate our diets by force even if most of us are smart enough to figure out that poor eating habits are bad for us.
I would far rather have liberty at the price of your death on the road because you were too stupid to wear a helmet, than your thin, unhappy life in a fascist state (I'd probably be killed by the government for speaking out.) If you subjugate your natural rights to the government for the "greater good", there is no limit to how much of those rights the government can, and will, eventually take. Rather than anarchy, what we need is voluntary government - a government which has no more rights than the citizens, and a system based on title/transfer theory rather than social contract theory. To those who believe in a state that must initiate force for the good of some, that sounds like anarchy, but it's not. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vic Cinc Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: liberty at any price Re: [Libertarian] Re: LP Moderates Succeed in Deleting Half the Platform Terry L Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, do these helmetless riders own* their bodies or are > they 'responsible' to you? > > *exclusive right to determine use and disposition this is the problem with the LP. the fact is cars are running over motorcyclists and the one without helmets have a much higher rate of death then ones with helmets. its easy to say its a personal responsibility thing and you are responsible for the choice you make. but in real life things are not that clear, some people look to government for guidance, if that guidance isnt comming then some people may make bad choices, like not wearing helmets. its not just an issue of ownership its an issue of responsiblity. if the government says we dont give a shit if you wear a helmet or not, then thats sends a clear signal that there is nothing wrong with not wearing helmets. clearly the stats say if you get hit by a car you are much more likely to die then if you did wear a helmet. clearly there is something wrong with not wearing a helmet. its anarchy to say, the gov doesnt give a shit because you are the owner of your body and its not our problem if you make a dumb decision and die. thats not liberty. the public wants the government to give a shit, they want the government to set acceptable behavior like wearing helmets. clearly there is a price to not wearing helmets. by enforcing fines for not wearing helmets the government is saying the same thing. lack of helmet and seat belt laws are a clear case of liberty at a heavy price. I dont beleive the vast majority want liberty at any price, and neither should the LP. the LP should distance itself from anything that smells, feels or looks like anarchy. the planks must have a sense of responsibility about them. liberty and freedom must be balanced by responsiblity. the most significant and vote winning plank for the LP imo are taxation. nothing inhibits liberty more then having your income and capital stolen to buy votes from others. Vic [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
