PBS (liberals) weighs in on "helmet laws"

[Stricken]

Good read..
Earlier this year, 3000 bikers staged a protest in Los Angeles against a California law that goes into effect in January requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. Bikers sought to overturn the measure, arguing for freedom of choice. One biker said that helmets would mess up his spiked, "rock 'n roll" hairdo. Some bikers, followers of the Sikh Dharma religion, claimed that they couldn't wear helmets because helmets would interfere with the turbans worn to symbolize their faith. Supporters of the law argue that it will protect cyclists from serious injuries. Bikers are outraged, maintaining that their freedom of choice is being denied.
At issue in the controversy over the helmet law is the problem of paternalism. Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom for his or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father ("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather than letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws, practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, compulsory retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„all designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not.
While paternalistic practices are relatively common, are they morally acceptable? Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well being of others. When people freely choose to act in ways that seem contrary to their own well being, the question of whether we are justified in interfering with their affairs, the problem of paternalism arises.
Most people would agree that paternalism is justified when dealing with a person whose freedom of choice is seriously impaired or limited, be it due to coercion, a person's limited cognitive capacities, ignorance of the facts, the effects of a disease such as Alzheimer's, or the influence of drugs. For example, paternalism is sometimes warranted when dealing with children, who lack the emotional and cognitive capacity to always know what is in their best interest. We may alsp be justified in temporarily interfering with a person action to determine whether that person is, in fact, actin voluntarily, is appraised of the facts, and is otherwise competent, before allowing him or her to proceed.
But apart from cases involving serious incompetence or other limitations, is paternalism justified? Consider the hang glider who refuses to wear safety devices because "it interferes with the sensation of flying like bird," or the smoker who believes that the pleasure derived from smoking compensates for the years of life loss as a result.
Some moral philosophers hold that a competent person's freely made decision should never be over ridden, even for that person's own good. The classic case against paternalism was voiced by John Stuart Mill, nineteenth century British philosopher, who wrote:
. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign.
For Mill and his followers, freedom is essential for the development of each person's individuality, the attainment of truth, and the development of new and more enriching lifestyles. It is, therefore, a most fundamental social value. Persons must be left free to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, even if these choices are considered reckless, stupid, or otherwise "bad" choices by others. Moreover, the ability to make choices that promote our well-being is a capacity one acquires and improves only through practice.
Also, according to this view, individuals are the best judges of their own interests and so should be left free to pursue them. Mill writes: "With respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.... He is the man most interested in his own well-being." If I, from my privileged standpoint, can't be trusted to determine what's in my best interest, that judgment certainly can't be trusted to someone else from a less privileged standpoint.
From another perspective, paternalism is objectionable because it violates what the philosopher Immanuel Kant called the equal "dignity" of all human beings. Respect for human dignity implies respect for people's ability to think and choose for themselves. Paternalism, however, imposes choices based on what someone else thinks is good for a person. People who are interfered with are not treated as equals capable of making their own choices, Kant claims, but are treated as means to someone else's view of what their choices should be, "like immature children unable to distinguish between what is truly useful or harmful to them." Nevertheless, many philosophers believe that paternalism can sometimes be justified. According to some philosophers, restricting a person's freedom is warranted when such interference maximizes benefits and minimizes harm to a person. Freedom may be an important value, but it is not the only value. There may be situations in which the costs to a person's freedom are trivial compared to other values, such as happiness or health, that might be gained by restricting that freedom. Mandatory seat belt laws, for example, entail a loss of freedom that is minor compared to the lives saved and the injuries prevented by such laws. Some philosophers claim that paternalism is justified only when it is aimed at protecting or promoting a person's freedom. For example, nineteenth century prohibitions against selling oneself into slavery restricted a person's freedom in the short run, but resulted in greater freedom in the long run.
Others challenge Mill's claim that because individuals are the best judge of their own interests, others ought not to interfere, pointing out that some people lack good judgment when it comes to their best interests. For example, people with low self-esteem or people who have been abused as children may not have a true sense of who they are and who they can bc and tend toward self-destructive choices. In such cases, others may be better judges of what will promote their good.
Paternalism may also be warranted in situations in which, because of our shortsightedness, impulsiveness, or carelessness, we would want to have our freedom restricted, especially when dangerous and irreversible consequences are involved. Not all of our decisions are considered, careful decisions that take into account our long-run welfare. A motorcyclist who refuses to wear a helmet will be more likely to wear one after an accident. Here paternalism is justified to protect a person's future self from the shortsighted or foolish choices of his or her earlier self.

[stevewfl]

They can move to FL where we have it right:

No matter what we argue, the officials WE elected here in FL got it right.

If you're an adult, you decide lid or no $#$%ing lid

[Scottly]

If you're an adult and have a brain or care about your brain you should wear a lid.

Florida gives you a choice. I choose to wear one.

I support those that don't, but would join you in calling them stupid.

[Scottly]

If you're an adult and have a brain or care about your brain you should wear a lid.

Florida gives you a choice. I choose to wear one.

I support those that don't, but would join you in calling them stupid.

[pyroman1]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator or lack thereof with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among humans, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man

Just the first two:

1
a (1): an individual human; especially: an adult male human (2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilman> (3): husband (4): lover
b: the human race : humankind
c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly: any living or extinct hominid
d (1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2)obsolete: the quality or state of being manly : manliness
e: fellow, chap —used as mode of familiar address
f—used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>
2
a: individual, person <a man could get killed there>
b: the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements <she's your man>

If you want to change the definition of words, you'll have to move on a far more massive scale than just this site. Take notes from those that refer to themselves as liberal but want to take away your rights and your money.

As for having a problem with Creator, we were all created. Whether it was in a test tube or by your parents having sex; I guarantee you were created and didn't pop out of nowhere.

States have tried to pass some far-reaching bans on abortion, including outlawing it in all situations. Many of those laws have not withstood legal scrutiny. It's an endless debate. I used to think I had the issues square in my head until a personal incident rattled what I thought had been my beliefs in that regard.

You know, as a result of modern medicine, some kids are born in a terribly broken and/or unaware condition; and these kids would not have survived child birth ten years ago. Maybe man's science is undermining G-d's will as to who is supposed to survive.

Forget legal scrutiny, some of these attempts aren't enforceable so who really cares? The morning after pill is quite effective, is nothing more than a very high dose of birth control pills and therefore can't truly be banned. Why are people bothering to attempt to argue against anyone that couldn't enforce what they want to do anyway?

Now, banning birth control, that's an entirely different issue.

...
Paternalism may also be warranted in situations in which, because of our shortsightedness, impulsiveness, or carelessness, we would want to have our freedom restricted, especially when dangerous and irreversible consequences are involved. Not all of our decisions are considered, careful decisions that take into account our long-run welfare. A motorcyclist who refuses to wear a helmet will be more likely to wear one after an accident. Here paternalism is justified to protect a person's future self from the shortsighted or foolish choices of his or her earlier self.

See below...

...Take responsibility for yourself and stop worrying about other people so much. If we all stopped worrying about what other people were doing, there would be less arguments, less war, less strife on this planet. Instead we are a bunch of busybodies who can't manage to control ourselves but we know exactly what is best for everyone else.

[BLUE WAFFLE]

These liberal idiots are extremely annoying.

This is America, we should have the choice of wearing protection or not. If they want a dictatorship that tells you what, and what not, to wear, they should get the hell out of AMERICA, and go to France. I hear they force you to carry a reflective vest in your car, and they do traffic stops to check for them....

[stevewfl]

These liberal idiots are extremely annoying.

This is America, we should have the choice of wearing protection or not. If they want a dictatorship that tells you what, and what not, to wear, they should get the hell out of AMERICA, and go to France. I hear they force you to carry a reflective vest in your car, and they do traffic stops to check for them....

Very nicely put, but wow I'm looking forward to the liberal's response

[Stricken]

Pyro let me ask you this. Say im in my car and God forbid I get in an accident with a guy riding a bike. He chose not to wear a lid this day and died because of it. Now if he died from only a head injury vs just some bumps and bruises I might be charged with vehicular manslaughter instead of a lesser charge. Now what?

As you can see in this case I'm in deep shit. And this is a reason I worry about it.

And Steve if you think I'm a liberal you are off your rocker lol.

[pyroman1]

Pyro let me ask you this. Say im in my car and God forbid I get in an accident with a guy riding a bike. He chose not to wear a lid this day and died because of it. Now if he died from only a head injury vs just some bumps and bruises I might be charged with vehicular manslaughter instead of a lesser charge. Now what?

As you can see in this case I'm in deep shit. And this is a reason I worry about it.

And Steve if you think I'm a liberal you are off your rocker lol.

If proper safety equipment would have resulted in minor injury then he took that risk upon himself. It goes hand-in-hand with my discussion with Perma Grin regarding comparative fault.

As for Steve, consider being called liberal a compliment. What he really is talking about is collectivists (aka: socialists, progressives). There is nothing liberal about modern liberals. They stole the word to make themselves sound better and drug the name through the mud. The root of the word is liber and is Latin, the meaning is free, unrestricted. There is nothing free or unrestricted about socialists or progressives, the name liberal doesn't describe them at all.

[Perma Grin]

These liberal idiots are extremely annoying.

Lovin' these divisive labels.

I believe every American ought to give up their freedom for a few years, and possibly their life, and serve in the military. I believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I believe Americans ought to relinquish some privacy so the government can thwart terrorism. I believe people of the same sex ought to be able to be legally married. I believe a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning is wrong and oxymoronic. I believe in restricting media more than it is.

Am I liberal or conservative?

[pyroman1]

Lovin' these divisive labels.

I believe every American ought to give up their freedom for a few years, and possibly their life, and serve in the military. I believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I believe Americans ought to relinquish some privacy so the government can thwart terrorism. I believe people of the same sex ought to be able to be legally married. I believe a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning is wrong and oxymoronic. I believe in restricting media more than it is.

Am I liberal or conservative?

Neither, you are a collectivist.

Let's show how a classical liberal would respond:

I believe every American should have a choice as to whether he or she would like to serve in the military. I believe every American should enjoy the fruits of his/her labor. I believe Americans ought to never give up liberty for security. I believe the government has no place in marriage period. I believe a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning is wrong and oxymoronic. I believe in freedom of speech and of the press.

[Stricken]

I don't follow some of those ideals.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Civil Union's fine but don't call it marriage.

To serve should be a choice unless there is a draft.

No gun laws except for age and criminal restriction.

I also don't think if you are successful that you should be punished for it by paying higher taxes. Should not be loop-holes to pay less either.

Get Rid of the IRS have a flat tax.

For a womans right to choose.

Smallet Gov't

[Crashin]

. Take responsibility for yourself and stop worrying about other people so much. If we all stopped worrying about what other people were doing, there would be less arguments, less war, less strife on this planet. Instead we are a bunch of busybodies who can't manage to control ourselves but we know exactly what is best for everyone else.

I hate agreeing with Pyro but this is about the only real relavent statement in this thread. Do what you know is right and be done with it.

Can we lock this thread now?

[pyroman1]

I hate agreeing with Pyro but this is about the only real relavent statement in this thread. Do what you know is right and be done with it.

Can we lock this thread now?

I hate agreeing with myself too.

[ApogeeNow]

I hate agreeing with myself too.

Actually, I like agreeing with you, it makes my life so much easier, because I can defend my arguements & viewpoints much more easier;
than say like . . . . arguing with Strick.

[BLUE WAFFLE]

Lovin' these divisive labels.

I believe every American ought to give up their freedom for a few years, and possibly their life, and serve in the military. I believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I believe Americans ought to relinquish some privacy so the government can thwart terrorism. I believe people of the same sex ought to be able to be legally married. I believe a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning is wrong and oxymoronic. I believe in restricting media more than it is.

Am I liberal or conservative?

neither, your like me and many others. screw party lines and think for yourself. this is America, I shouldn't need republicans telling me what I can do, nor should democrats be telling me what i can't do. the government is there to protect us from crime, outside governments, and provide economical and geographic stability and security. being everyones babysitter and paying people to live off of welfare is not part of that.

Due to major surgery the armed forces didn't wavor me. it was my plan.