Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3058
Agreed. Totally agree with Frank too, just another example of nanny gov't. If a biker goes down at 65 on the freeway, a helmet does little or nothing, only in the (rare) incident the only impact occured on the top of the head, with no spinal injury. If a biker wants to wear a helmet he is free to do so, if not, why is it anyones business but his? Doesn't mean he is stupid, maybe he enjoys it enough to merit the added risk. How can a (stupid) politician know what each biker values most? But if I as the gov't tell you its the law to wear a helmet, wear a seatbelt, use daytime running lights, etc, before too long you will give up any other rights I want to take.
As I've said before, I get wary when gov't tries to restrict others freedoms, else it may be my turn someday.
|
The politicians you mention are anything but "stupid". They (as legislators and executive authorities) justify their positions and their very existence by generating and enforcing more laws. It is their 'raison d'etre'.
In the past, the reason for public safety laws was to protect the public from the behaviors of other individuals that might cause harm to anyone other than themselves. Nowadays the Nanny State mentality strives to generate laws that supposedly protect individuals from themselves.
Young children might need nannies until they become adults; adults do not.
The Nanny state has a vested interest in treating us as children, so they can dominate us as our nannies. They want to spare us the consequences of our own actions - supposedly for our own benefit.
It's hardly about genuine concern for us.
It's all about maintaining and increasing the power and dominance of those who benefit from regulating us.