Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Dyakovo]

[citation needed]

Laws reduce freedom. Very few of them deal with harm to others, that most agree should be banned. Such as murder, rape, assault, or theft.

Most laws have negative consequences. Like reducing wages, increasing the unemployment rate, jam packing a prison system with prisoners, half which are non-violent offenders. It also carries great consequences for the prisoners after their release.

Police departments use civil asset forfeiture, which is theft by all but the most anal legal definition. They do not charge (yet alone convict) anyone of a crime, yet steal property.

Now simple infractions are being criminalized.

We have had outrageous cases of people going to prison for buying legal prescription pills, prescribed to them. We had a case of David McNabb, a seafood importer that is serving eight years in prison for smuggling and money laundering. He imported lobster tails in opaque plastic bags. At most, this should be a civil infraction. Instead he is guilty of smuggling, since the bags are opaque. And he paid his employees to smuggle, and is therefore guilty of money laundering.

Managers are personally liable if one of their employees violates an environmental law, the ability to prevent such an act, notwithstanding. However the manager is also liable, for not turning the employee in.

None of these laws are beneficial to anyone, except the prosecutors and in some cases, the cops.

There are now over 4000 crimes in the US, at the Federal level. No one knows them all.

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to Support your claim.

[Sibirsky]

Laws reduce freedom. Very few of them deal with harm to others, that most agree should be banned. Such as murder, rape, assault, or theft.

Most laws have negative consequences. Like reducing wages, increasing the unemployment rate, jam packing a prison system with prisoners, half which are non-violent offenders. It also carries great consequences for the prisoners after their release.

Police departments use civil asset forfeiture, which is theft by all but the most anal legal definition. They do not charge (yet alone convict) anyone of a crime, yet steal property.

Now simple infractions are being criminalized.

We have had outrageous cases of people going to prison for buying legal prescription pills, prescribed to them. We had a case of David McNabb, a seafood importer that is serving eight years in prison for smuggling and money laundering. He imported lobster tails in opaque plastic bags. At most, this should be a civil infraction. Instead he is guilty of smuggling, since the bags are opaque. And he paid his employees to smuggle, and is therefore guilty of money laundering.

Managers are personally liable if one of their employees violates an environmental law, the ability to prevent such an act, notwithstanding. However the manager is also liable, for not turning the employee in.

None of these laws are beneficial to anyone, except the prosecutors and in some cases, the cops.

There are now over 4000 crimes in the US, at the Federal level. No one knows them all.

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to Support your claim.

Only according to your, extremely illogical standards.

My claim is supported by the fact that we have 25% of the world's prisoners, despite having only 5% of the world's population. It is supported that half of them are non-violent offenders, and that the books are full of victimless crimes. That is not beneficial. Most laws prohibiting direct harm to another, were on the books for hundreds of years. Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Not beneficial.

[Alyakia]

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to Support your claim.

Only according to your, extremely illogical standards.

My claim is supported by the fact that we have 25% of the world's prisoners, despite having only 5% of the world's population. It is supported that half of them are non-violent offenders, and that the books are full of victimless crimes. That is not beneficial. Most laws prohibiting direct harm to another, were on the books for hundreds of years. Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Not beneficial.

half of those are due to 1 law, or a small group of laws. 1 out of 4000 is not "most" (yes i know it's not federal but you get the point)

[Sibirsky]

Only according to your, extremely illogical standards.

My claim is supported by the fact that we have 25% of the world's prisoners, despite having only 5% of the world's population. It is supported that half of them are non-violent offenders, and that the books are full of victimless crimes. That is not beneficial. Most laws prohibiting direct harm to another, were on the books for hundreds of years. Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Not beneficial.

half of those are due to 1 law, or a small group of laws. 1 out of 4000 is not "most" (yes i know it's not federal but you get the point)

Like David McNab, serving eight years in prison for using opaque bags, instead of paper bags, and then getting slapped for smuggling and money laundering right?

Like civil asset forfeiture?

Your side pointed to a group of four laws, that are clearly beneficial. Four out of 4000 is not most either.

Did you also purposely miss the larger post?

[Alyakia]

half of those are due to 1 law, or a small group of laws. 1 out of 4000 is not "most" (yes i know it's not federal but you get the point)

Like David McNab, serving eight years in prison for using opaque bags, instead of paper bags, and then getting slapped for smuggling and money laundering right?

Like civil asset forfeiture?

Your side pointed to a group of four laws, that are clearly beneficial. Four out of 4000 is not most either.

Did you also purposely miss the larger post?

no i didn't. i was actually sort of impressed that you implied that you didn't know most of the laws yet also thought they were bad in the same post.

Four members of a smuggling ring were prosecuted for harvesting, possessing, or transporting into the U.S. spiny lobster, in violation of U.S. and Honduran law.

A Honduran national, David Henson McNab, engaged in an intentional, sophisticated and systematic plundering of the valuable lobster fishery resource of Honduras for at least five years. His fleet of lobster boats, the largest in Honduras, indiscriminately harvested every lobster they found, regardless of size or reproductive status. Lobsters as small (young) as 2 ounces as well as eggbearing females were taken. Marine biologists have found that the Honduran lobster stocks are part of the source, due to the prevailing currents and unusual lobster life cycle, of the lobster stocks that support the lobster fishery off Florida. Thus, McNab’s pillaging of this resource directly affected not just Honduras stocks, but also U.S. stocks and U.S. markets. His operations were conducted at the ultimate expense not only of the resource but also all those who depend upon it; every other lobster fisherman, both Honduran and U.S., as well as those employed in the processing and distribution of lobster, were affected.

McNab was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment along with two confederates who each received 97 months imprisonment and a fourth who got 24 months.

this guy? it's hard to find info. in any case it seems like there is a lot more than "he used the wrong bags" to this case.

[Kaztropol]

Small accidents, i.e those that result in some body damage and at low speed, are usually at speeds where the human body isn't at risk from severe trauma than it is at higher speeds.

In some cars built during the 1950's and early 1960's, fatalities occurred to occupants of those vehicles, in accidents at speeds of as low as 5 mph.

5 !

Here's a device called a "seat belt convincer": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOdOWlhsJHs

this paper is an interesting read:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01 ... 8S6W24.PDF

[Sibirsky]

Like David McNab, serving eight years in prison for using opaque bags, instead of paper bags, and then getting slapped for smuggling and money laundering right?

Like civil asset forfeiture?

Your side pointed to a group of four laws, that are clearly beneficial. Four out of 4000 is not most either.

Did you also purposely miss the larger post?

no i didn't. i was actually sort of impressed that you implied that you didn't know most of the laws yet also thought they were bad in the same post.

No one knows most of the laws. I don't need to know all of them to realize that they are damaging. Almost all of the laws we do know well, are damaging.

Four members of a smuggling ring were prosecuted for harvesting, possessing, or transporting into the U.S. spiny lobster, in violation of U.S. and Honduran law.

A Honduran national, David Henson McNab, engaged in an intentional, sophisticated and systematic plundering of the valuable lobster fishery resource of Honduras for at least five years. His fleet of lobster boats, the largest in Honduras, indiscriminately harvested every lobster they found, regardless of size or reproductive status. Lobsters as small (young) as 2 ounces as well as eggbearing females were taken. Marine biologists have found that the Honduran lobster stocks are part of the source, due to the prevailing currents and unusual lobster life cycle, of the lobster stocks that support the lobster fishery off Florida. Thus, McNab’s pillaging of this resource directly affected not just Honduras stocks, but also U.S. stocks and U.S. markets. His operations were conducted at the ultimate expense not only of the resource but also all those who depend upon it; every other lobster fisherman, both Honduran and U.S., as well as those employed in the processing and distribution of lobster, were affected.

McNab was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment along with two confederates who each received 97 months imprisonment and a fourth who got 24 months.

this guy? it's hard to find info. in any case it seems like there is a lot more than "he used the wrong bags" to this case.

Yes, him.

[Keyboard Warriors]

There's still been no connection made between "we have too many laws" and "seatbelt laws are unnecessary".

[Dyakovo]

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to Support your claim.

Only according to your, extremely illogical standards.

My claim is supported by the fact that we have 25% of the world's prisoners, despite having only 5% of the world's population. It is supported that half of them are non-violent offenders, and that the books are full of victimless crimes. That is not beneficial. Most laws prohibiting direct harm to another, were on the books for hundreds of years. Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Not beneficial.

You claimed "most laws do more harm than good". One example of a possibly bad law does nothing to prove your claim. Nor does your admission that you don't actually know most of the laws.

[Sibirsky]

Only according to your, extremely illogical standards.

My claim is supported by the fact that we have 25% of the world's prisoners, despite having only 5% of the world's population. It is supported that half of them are non-violent offenders, and that the books are full of victimless crimes. That is not beneficial. Most laws prohibiting direct harm to another, were on the books for hundreds of years. Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Not beneficial.

You claimed "most laws do more harm than good". One example of a possibly bad law does nothing to prove your claim. Nor does your admission that you don't actually know most of the laws.

I provided several examples.

No one knows most laws. Not even lawyers. That is part of the problem. There aren't 4 thousand ways to harm someone. What used to be infractions, are now crimes. That is not beneficial.

No one has backed up the counter claim, that it is somehow a benefit to have 4 thousand federal crimes. Not even remotely close.

[Twilight Imperium]

-snip-

You're still posting? You still haven't posted anything but ramblings, and the sources you did post actually disprove the points you wanted them to support!

This just... it's a truly impressive lack of self-awareness. I'm legitimately impressed.

[Dyakovo]

-snip-

You're still posting? You still haven't posted anything but ramblings, and the sources you did post actually disprove the points you wanted them to support!

This just... it's a truly impressive lack of self-awareness. I'm legitimately impressed.

It's silver medal debating, is what it is. Just add s

[Sibirsky]

-snip-

You're still posting? You still haven't posted anything but ramblings, and the sources you did post actually disprove the points you wanted them to support!

This just... it's a truly impressive lack of self-awareness. I'm legitimately impressed.

And you have been warned for flaming. I suggest you check your attitude at the door. I am allowed to post here, whether you like it or not, or whether or not you can get your head around the very simple premise of someone being against the use of force on peaceful people.

You have made one legitimate point, which is entirely irrelevant.

I have posted no sources that support my main point, because morals are subjective.

[Sibirsky]

You're still posting? You still haven't posted anything but ramblings, and the sources you did post actually disprove the points you wanted them to support!

This just... it's a truly impressive lack of self-awareness. I'm legitimately impressed.

It's silver medal debating, is what it is. Just add s

Attack the argument, not the poster.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=291999&hilit=silver+medal+debating&start=575#p19647183

[Keyboard Warriors]

You claimed "most laws do more harm than good". One example of a possibly bad law does nothing to prove your claim. Nor does your admission that you don't actually know most of the laws.

I provided several examples.

No one knows most laws. Not even lawyers. That is part of the problem. There aren't 4 thousand ways to harm someone. What used to be infractions, are now crimes. That is not beneficial.

No one has backed up the counter claim, that it is somehow a benefit to have 4 thousand federal crimes. Not even remotely close.

The number of federal crimes isn't the least bit important so I wouldn't expect anybody to try and defend that detail.

[Vissegaard]

Insane.
This thread is.

[The Liberated Territories]

New Hampshire doesn't have mandatory seat belt laws (for anyone 18 or above in age) and they appear to handle it well enough. People should be responsible for themselves, with common sense being voluntary. The people who neglect a seat belt aren't necessarily affected by the policy anyhow, they're simply more furtive about their transgressions to their own safety. Seat belt laws don't really produce a significant impact and encourage an atmosphere in which individuals comply to "nanny laws" like this due to obedience to authority, instead of being cautious due to basic reasoning. It's not worth the time and resources enforcing this zero-tolerance law. It doesn't harm anyone other than yourself if you do disregard it. The draconian fines are more likely to harm someone. That and seat belts have been occasionally noted to contribute to injuries. Regardless, outliers will be outliers, the reckless will continue to be reckless, and these intrusive laws will only continue to harm the harmless. The police should focus on more important things, like shooting the neighbour's puppy.

This is because New Hampshire is awesome (and dominated by libertarians and liberals).

Three cheers for New Hampshire!

[Puerto Tyranus]

I provided several examples.

No one knows most laws. Not even lawyers. That is part of the problem. There aren't 4 thousand ways to harm someone. What used to be infractions, are now crimes. That is not beneficial.

No one has backed up the counter claim, that it is somehow a benefit to have 4 thousand federal crimes. Not even remotely close.

You, my friend, are just not looking hard enough for way to hurt people.

At any rate, I believe in seatbelt laws mostly because it's a 2-second act that saves your life an others, as well as keeps the public from having to pay overmuch for you hitting or being hit by someone else in a car.

Also cause they are useful for strapping in my various groceries when the back is full.

And because I still look back fondly on the days when I would sit, alone, in the middle seat in the back of my mom's van and use all three seatbelts...those were the days...

[The Liberated Territories]

I provided several examples.

No one knows most laws. Not even lawyers. That is part of the problem. There aren't 4 thousand ways to harm someone. What used to be infractions, are now crimes. That is not beneficial.

No one has backed up the counter claim, that it is somehow a benefit to have 4 thousand federal crimes. Not even remotely close.

You, my friend, are just not looking hard enough for way to hurt people.

At any rate, I believe in seatbelt laws mostly because it's a 2-second act that saves your life an others, as well as keeps the public from having to pay overmuch for you hitting or being hit by someone else in a car.

Also cause they are useful for strapping in my various groceries when the back is full.

And because I still look back fondly on the days when I would sit, alone, in the middle seat in the back of my mom's van and use all three seatbelts...those were the days...

Absence of seat belt laws = / = absence of seat belts.

[Puerto Tyranus]

You, my friend, are just not looking hard enough for way to hurt people.

At any rate, I believe in seatbelt laws mostly because it's a 2-second act that saves your life an others, as well as keeps the public from having to pay overmuch for you hitting or being hit by someone else in a car.

Also cause they are useful for strapping in my various groceries when the back is full.

And because I still look back fondly on the days when I would sit, alone, in the middle seat in the back of my mom's van and use all three seatbelts...those were the days...

Absence of seat belt laws = / = absence of seat belts.

You make a good point...perhaps some kind of encouragement program without the laws, themselves? Or harsher penalties for people causing accidents while not wearing seatbelts, but no laws against just driving without them?

[The Liberated Territories]

Absence of seat belt laws = / = absence of seat belts.

You make a good point...perhaps some kind of encouragement program without the laws, themselves? Or harsher penalties for people causing accidents while not wearing seatbelts, but no laws against just driving without them?

My original idea was for seat belts to be more circumstantial, e.g. there is no reason to ticket a guy not wearing a seat belt while just getting out of his driveway, or if some guy is driving on an empty road in the desert. I am pretty sure in some localities this already might be the case.

[The Black Forrest]

[citation needed]

Laws reduce freedom. Very few of them deal with harm to others, that most agree should be banned. Such as murder, rape, assault, or theft.

Most laws have negative consequences. Like reducing wages, increasing the unemployment rate, jam packing a prison system with prisoners, half which are non-violent offenders. It also carries great consequences for the prisoners after their release.

Police departments use civil asset forfeiture, which is theft by all but the most anal legal definition. They do not charge (yet alone convict) anyone of a crime, yet steal property.

Now simple infractions are being criminalized.

We have had outrageous cases of people going to prison for buying legal prescription pills, prescribed to them. We had a case of David McNabb, a seafood importer that is serving eight years in prison for smuggling and money laundering. He imported lobster tails in opaque plastic bags. At most, this should be a civil infraction. Instead he is guilty of smuggling, since the bags are opaque. And he paid his employees to smuggle, and is therefore guilty of money laundering.

Managers are personally liable if one of their employees violates an environmental law, the ability to prevent such an act, notwithstanding. However the manager is also liable, for not turning the employee in.

None of these laws are beneficial to anyone, except the prosecutors and in some cases, the cops.

There are now over 4000 crimes in the US, at the Federal level. No one knows them all.

Wow. Who thought making people wear seat belts did all that.

[Davao and Mati]

No, because Seat belts are required for safety

[Twilight Imperium]

It's silver medal debating, is what it is. Just add s

Attack the argument, not the poster.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=291999&hilit=silver+medal+debating&start=575#p19647183

We would, but you don't have an argument. You have a loose collection of assertions we spent several hours trying to pin down yesterday, without much success.

And I do apologize for calling you a moron, that was classless and silly of me. I don't need to bring in my own words to make you appear foolish, your own words do just fine for that.

Anyway, aside from "laws are bad mmkay", do you have an argument? As noted before, I'd happily engage on anything actually debatable.

[Dyakovo]

You, my friend, are just not looking hard enough for way to hurt people.

At any rate, I believe in seatbelt laws mostly because it's a 2-second act that saves your life an others, as well as keeps the public from having to pay overmuch for you hitting or being hit by someone else in a car.

Also cause they are useful for strapping in my various groceries when the back is full.

And because I still look back fondly on the days when I would sit, alone, in the middle seat in the back of my mom's van and use all three seatbelts...those were the days...

Absence of seat belt laws = / = absence of seat belts.

"Absence of seat belt laws" = "reduced use of seat belts"