PDA

View Full Version : DUIs, seatbelt laws...... how bout carseats?




christagious
06-01-2008, 10:31 PM
Just wondering what everybody here thinks about the carseat laws for infants? With all the arguing about DUI laws, and "Click it or ticket" I'm just curious how you all feel about the carseat laws. You can argue that it's your right to put your infant in a carseat or not and that your car is your property, but I think that's an unfair position because the infant isn't being given the choice as to whether or not they want to be safe or not. Same could go for the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument too, I guess. But anyways... Carseat laws, how do you all feel?

RSLudlum
06-01-2008, 10:36 PM
I find it quite hypocritical that they enforce 'click it or ticket' laws for personel/business vehicles yet there's no seatbelt enforcement if they're even available on state funded transportation vehicles like school buses or public buses, hell or even the trash men that hang off the back of the garbage trucks.

Danke
06-01-2008, 10:37 PM
Same answer. It is commercial law. Does not apply to private travel. Which is a right not a privilege.

pinkmandy
06-01-2008, 10:44 PM
I don't mind a carseat law- I can rationalize that because a parent trying to drive while trying to get a toddler to stop running across the backseat is a hazard to others and to the child. A baby who is not properly restrained can be killed in a minor fender bender. I'd also agree that school buses should have proper restraints. The hypocrisy there kills me.

I don't like the carseat in the backseat law. Prior that, we weren't hearing about parents leaving babies forgotten to die in sweltering vehicles every summer.

OptionsTrader
06-01-2008, 10:48 PM
No punishment for pre-crime, period.

Danke
06-01-2008, 10:54 PM
No punishment for pre-crime, period.

Pulling up file on previously banned member now...


http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles/images/minority-report.jpg


Recommendation: PRE-BAN!

pinkmandy
06-01-2008, 10:58 PM
I may have to change my stance upon thinking about it. I'm sure that even if there were no carseat law most people would still use them, if for no other reason than because of the stigma of not protecting your child. I would use a carseat whether or not there was a law...

OptionsTrader
06-01-2008, 11:06 PM
I may have to change my stance upon thinking about it. I'm sure that even if there were no carseat law most people would still use them, if for no other reason than because of the stigma of not protecting your child. I would use a carseat whether or not there was a law...


I view this issue just as I do laws against the use of drugs. I will use a carseat for my children because it is the smart thing to do, I will buckle up because it is in my best interests, I will not smoke pot and will teach my kids not to abuse drugs, I will do all of these things by choice and a law to criminalize bad behavior is not needed and is not constitutional. We have to allow people to make mistakes and make decisions for themselves. Punishment is only appropriate after person A infringes on the life, liberty, or property of person B.

pinkmandy
06-01-2008, 11:13 PM
Yeah, I can see why a law isn't needed. I don't think it's the same as drugs because nobody should care what you put into your body, much less legislate it. I can at least rationalize the carseats with wanting to protect kids but upon thinking about it- people don't use them because there's a law. Or do they? I doubt it. Education is more effective than laws regardless and I'm sure if the laws were repealed private groups would pop up to educate if needed.

christagious
06-02-2008, 11:25 AM
Yeah, I can see why a law isn't needed. I don't think it's the same as drugs because nobody should care what you put into your body, much less legislate it. I can at least rationalize the carseats with wanting to protect kids but upon thinking about it- people don't use them because there's a law. Or do they? I doubt it. Education is more effective than laws regardless and I'm sure if the laws were repealed private groups would pop up to educate if needed.

Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

tod evans
06-02-2008, 11:29 AM
ya` can`t legislate morality or common sense.

pinkmandy
06-02-2008, 11:37 AM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

So how did the law affect that couple?

pcosmar
06-02-2008, 11:44 AM
This video is from my youth. I was put in a cardboard box for the 3 mils crossing of the St. Mary's River. It is how we got to Church on Sundays.
http://www.limeisland.com/media/marking_the_way.avi
From here,
http://www.limeisland.com/historyclips.htm
These are from my Family Home Movies.

I remember siting on my Dad's lap and "steering" the car at four years old.
It is amazing how many children survived before child seats.

Child seats are both prudent and are the responsible thing to do, but it is another law that is unnecessary and abused.

Sally08
06-02-2008, 11:45 AM
I was a single mother with one child.

At that point, many years ago, I was allowed to use the booster seat in the front, passenger seat, including seat belt attachments.

If she was fussy, I could deal with her next to me.

As she got older, I talked to her about dangerous driving conditions (e.g., bridges and on/off ramps first to get slippery in icy weather) and watching traffic all around.

I also taught her over time that the middle lane of 3 gives more options in case of emergency (as well as less likely to get a speeding ticket).

Over time, she became a second set of eyes for me in terms of my own lane changes.

I believe that early instruction made her a safer driver herself. The only ticket I was aware of was her following a friend's car. The friend did a right turn on red and so did she. Of course, *she* was ticketed because (in the dark) it was not a right turn on red stoplight!

Going back to infant seat, it is my understanding that they must be in the *back* seat, so the driver has to turn totally around to handle any problems.

As a result, I suspect that the driving dangers for both passengers and other vehicles are much worse for *all* parents w/children.

My two cents-

Oh, you'll love this-

My family cross-country trips (one day straight from Chicago area to Colorado and second day straight to San Diego) had 2 parents and 4 kids in Oldsmobiles.

A crib mattress was put in the back seat for the trip for the 4 of us (obviously, no seat belt usage!)

1. One slept on back shelf
2. Two slept on crib mattress
3. One slept on front passenger side floor.

We actually used to play "Hide and Seek" in the car! Haha!

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 11:51 AM
The question of seatbelt laws is simply common sense: It's your life, so you have the right to waste it however you choose. It's a smart idea to wear a seatbelt, but the government has no right to force you to via the law, nor does it have any right to steal money from me to enforce this and make ridiculous advertisements about it.

DUI and carseat laws are more complicated matters, since they involve endangering lives other than your own. Although they stand upon the shaky principle that putting someone else's life in jeopardy through risky actions is itself a violation of their rights, they seem to be relatively effective in practice at preventing needless deaths, at least on the surface. If anyone has any dissenting statistics, please share - I'm all ears. I'd kind of like to be proven wrong here, since it would allow me to take a strong stance against "precrime" laws on principle, but...
I feel like, especially considering they're a local/state matter (rather than federal - we can have some competition of policy here), and there is some merit to them, these two laws are at least legitimate, and possibly even desirable, providing they don't form a slippery slope precedent. Then again, I do believe drunk driving laws should focus more on reckless driving behavior than on BAC content. Anyway, if you want to drink and drive, live in a state that allows it - if all of the militant drunk drivers band together, I'm sure they can form a pretty strong voting block and play destruction derby on their local roads. ;)

That said, laws requiring carseats are entirely different from laws requiring carseats to be in the backseat. Carseats in general are a no-brainer these days - any halfway decent parent would have one anyway, unless there's something important I'm missing (obviously I'm not referring to pcosmar's situation, since that was before carseats were ubiquitous). On the other hand, it's debatable whether it's safer for them to be in the front or the back - therefore, it's foolish and short-sighted (as well as a violation of a good parent's best judgment) to require them to be in the back.

BTW, despite the invasion of privacy and the kidnapping of children (both of which are obvious violations of rights), the biggest problem with Minority Report was not necessarily that they stopped impending murders, but that they punished that precrime (especially so severely) even though no actual harm was done.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 12:09 PM
No punishment for pre-crime, period.

Indeed. Punishing people because something might happen is wrong.

Children belong to the parents, not the state. Or the village.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 12:20 PM
Back seat car seats law varies from state to state. In Indiana and Illinois it is not illegal to have an infant in the front seat in a car seat, even if the other mothers shoot daggers from their eyes at you when they see you. (I know this for a reason!)

http://www.infant-car-seats.com/sitemap.html - seems current.

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Indeed. Punishing people because something might happen is wrong.

Children belong to the parents, not the state. Or the village.

Technically, children belong to themselves, although the parents have first say in how best to protect their children while they're not yet self-sufficient. If parents directly infringe upon the natural rights of their children (by, say, tying their kid's thumbs down so he won't suck them, which later requires amputation - that's actually happened, btw), they can and should be held responsible by the state in the same way that some random stranger should.

Putting their child's life at risk is something different, I agree, but it's essentially the same principle as putting some random person's life at risk (e.g. drunk driving). Carseat laws and DUI laws are definitely connected, since they're based upon this same premise, but...I do think it's an open question whether or not acting recklessly and putting someone's life at risk is inherently a violation of their rights.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 01:00 PM
Technically, children belong to themselves, although the parents have first say in how best to protect their children while they're not yet self-sufficient. If parents directly infringe upon the natural rights of their children (by, say, tying their kid's thumbs down so he won't suck them, which later requires amputation - that's actually happened, btw), they can and should be held responsible by the state in the same way that some random stranger should.

Putting their child's life at risk is something different, I agree, but it's essentially the same principle as putting some random person's life at risk (e.g. drunk driving). Carseat laws and DUI laws are definitely connected, since they're based upon this same premise, but...I do think it's an open question whether or not acting recklessly and putting someone's life at risk is inherently a violation of their rights.

We have to disagree. Children, especially infants and toddlers, are simply incapable of belonging to themselves. Children belong to the parents, and not the state. When I err, it will be on the side of freedom, and never that tired old "protect the children!" mantra.

We aren't born with a right to live with minimized risk.

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 01:05 PM
We have to disagree. Children, especially infants and toddlers, are simply incapable of belonging to themselves. Children belong to the parents, and not the state. When I err, it will be on the side of freedom, and never that tired old "protect the children!" mantra.

We aren't born with a right to live with minimized risk.

I agree that children are incapable of caring for themselves, but they don't belong to their parents in the sense that they're property and that the parents have a right to do absolutely whatever they want to them. If you were to follow such an idea to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly legal for parents to throw their babies into wood chippers, and nobody could do a damn thing about it.

I'm also an opponent of the "protect the children" mantra, at least when it's talking about imposing morality through government. However, protecting the natural rights of children from being infringed is just as much a job for law enforcement as protecting the natural rights of adults. As I mentioned, it's an open question whether or not we should follow the principle that recklessly putting someone else's life in danger is an inherent infringement of their rights, but it's not an open question that parents don't have the right to, for instance, commit deliberate acts of violence against their children.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 01:12 PM
I agree that children are incapable of caring for themselves, but they don't belong to their parents in the sense that they're property and that the parents have a right to do absolutely whatever they want to them. If you were to follow such an idea to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly legal for parents to throw their babies into wood chippers, and nobody could do a damn thing about it. [quote]

Except intentionally killing a child is murder, and even attempted suicide is illegal. So it isn't the same at all.

[quote]
I'm also an opponent of the "protect the children" mantra, at least when it's talking about imposing morality through government. However, protecting the natural rights of children from being infringed is just as much a job for law enforcement as protecting the natural rights of adults. As I mentioned, it's an open question whether or not we should follow the principle that recklessly putting someone else's life in danger is an inherent infringement of their rights, but it's not an open question that parents don't have the right to, for instance, commit deliberate acts of violence against their children.

Again, we just have to disagree. The function of government should be to protect freedom. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to be stupid, or we're not.

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 02:02 PM
Except intentionally killing a child is murder, and even attempted suicide is illegal. So it isn't the same at all.



Again, we just have to disagree. The function of government should be to protect freedom. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to be stupid, or we're not.

Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other. Murdering children is illegal because it's a violation of their inherent rights. Similarly, tying their thumbs down so long they need to be amputated is also a violation of their rights - it's bodily violence against another human being, regardless of how dependent that human being is. As I said, deliberate acts of violence are no more legitimate coming from parents than from anyone else, since children are living beings with inherent rights, not property owned by parents. I'm guessing this is not the part you disagree with, correct?

I agree with you that there's a distinction between deliberate violence and reckless stupidity, and that's why I said that it's an open question whether reckless stupidity can in and of itself violate someone else's rights. You hold that it cannot ("Either we are free to be stupid, or we're not"), whereas I'm on the fence.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 02:03 PM
We don't have a right to be protected from reckless stupidity.

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 02:11 PM
Fair enough - I expected that's where the [possible] difference of opinion was. I'm still on the fence on that, myself. On one hand, I don't like the idea of some drunk asshole charging swerving in the oncoming lane at night and nobody being permitted to stop him until after he kills someone. On the other hand, if we did have the right to be protected from reckless stupidity, that would certainly open a Pandora's Box with a miniature model of a slippery slope inside. Under the guise of protecting people from reckless stupidity, the government could use "their best judgment" to make pretty stupid calls, such as disallowing you from giving your kids candy because it might make them fat, etc. The subjective nature of the problem does means it's theoretically possible for protection against the reckless stupidity of others to turn into tyranny, but it does seem somewhat unlikely that it would actually go this far on the local level. Can anyone come up with any really strong, eloquent arguments going either way? I'm ready to be convinced. :p

Sally08
06-02-2008, 03:44 PM
Under the guise of protecting people from reckless stupidity, the government could use "their best judgment" to make pretty stupid calls, such as disallowing you from giving your kids candy because it might make them fat, etc.

Aren't (local) laws being passed to do just that?

I believe I've seen school districts that are banning soft drinks in the machines. I'd have to look to see if they are telling parents that they can't send them, either.

I believe the cafeteria food content is being specified, as well, so what limitations are being specified for bag lunches from home?

angelatc
06-02-2008, 05:12 PM
Fair enough - I expected that's where the [possible] difference of opinion was. I'm still on the fence on that, myself. On one hand, I don't like the idea of some drunk asshole charging swerving in the oncoming lane at night and nobody being permitted to stop him until after he kills someone. :p

Reckless driving is already illegal.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 05:14 PM
Aren't (local) laws being passed to do just that?

I believe I've seen school districts that are banning soft drinks in the machines. I'd have to look to see if they are telling parents that they can't send them, either.

I believe the cafeteria food content is being specified, as well, so what limitations are being specified for bag lunches from home?

I can tell you that in Hoffman Estates, the elementary schools aren't allowed to bring soda in their lunch, but the Jr High and High school kids are.

Also, homemade snacks are on the short list. Apparently other people's kitchens are scary.

CoreyBowen999
06-02-2008, 05:29 PM
Aren't (local) laws being passed to do just that?

I believe I've seen school districts that are banning soft drinks in the machines. I'd have to look to see if they are telling parents that they can't send them, either.

I believe the cafeteria food content is being specified, as well, so what limitations are being specified for bag lunches from home?

yeah we actually have that problem in my school. The district had us do "fitness tests" and see how well in shape we were. Everybody I knew just blew it off and didnt even try. So the district thought we were fat and took away anything with sugar basically in the cafeteria lol

familydog
06-02-2008, 05:58 PM
I used to ride in a lawn chair in the back of my parents station wagon. I think the death penalty is applied to parents who do that now, it seems. Our nation has been taken over by sissies :p

angelatc
06-02-2008, 06:03 PM
I used to ride in a lawn chair in the back of my parents station wagon. I think the death penalty is applied to parents who do that now, it seems. Our nation has been taken over by sissies :p

INdeed. I remember my neighbor's Mom would crawl the neighborhood in her station wagon. She'd pull up where we were playing and say "You guy want to go to a baseball game?" We'd run in, ask Mom, grab some shoes, and jump in the car. She'd cruise up the block, find another batch of us.....we'd go to the games sometimes with 15-20 kids crammed in the station wagon.

And I used to ride 45 minutes to my grandmother's house in the back of the truck.

Now, some states will ticket you if your freaking dog doesn't have a seatbelt on.

christagious
06-02-2008, 07:44 PM
So how did the law affect that couple?

Good question. I guess I didn't really prove a point. But I do think that there are ignorant enough people, such as that couple, who again are ignorant and won't use common sense. Even though a law didn't affect them, I'm sure that there are some dumbasses who the only reason they use a carseat is to avoid prosecution. I may be wrong though too

christagious
06-02-2008, 07:52 PM
I agree that children are incapable of caring for themselves, but they don't belong to their parents in the sense that they're property and that the parents have a right to do absolutely whatever they want to them. If you were to follow such an idea to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly legal for parents to throw their babies into wood chippers, and nobody could do a damn thing about it.

I'm also an opponent of the "protect the children" mantra, at least when it's talking about imposing morality through government. However, protecting the natural rights of children from being infringed is just as much a job for law enforcement as protecting the natural rights of adults. As I mentioned, it's an open question whether or not we should follow the principle that recklessly putting someone else's life in danger is an inherent infringement of their rights, but it's not an open question that parents don't have the right to, for instance, commit deliberate acts of violence against their children.


You're bringing up a lot of good points in your posts.

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Reckless driving is already illegal.

I never said it wasn't, and that's kind of irrelevant when we're discussing how things should be rather than how they are. The real question is: Should it be illegal?

If so, why not have DUI laws as well? Both laws prohibit reckless behavior that doesn't necessarily violate anyone's rights - it merely poses a threat. I'm not seeing a fundamental difference between the government's authority or lack thereof on these two matters.
If not, would it be better if "reckless" was defined more literally and concretely, such as crossing over the double-yellow? This could probably be justified under property rights even...for instance, the people collectively own public roads, so the people (through government) make rules for those roads. That said, by going through property rights, they wouldn't necessarily be laws - rather, you'd be considered a trespasser for breaking such road rules.



You're bringing up a lot of good points in your posts.
Thanks :)

FindLiberty
06-02-2008, 09:55 PM
Tear up ALL those laws or I will vomit.

Let Darwin sort out the gene pool if stupid parents kill off all their offspring.

It's not ever gonna happen - Parents tend to protect their children even without (or in spite of) help from the government.

BTW, humans somehow survived before the car seat! Mommy held my widdle body IN HER ARMS - IN THE FRONT SEAT - BAYBY'S SOFT SCULL INCHES FROM A HEAVY GUAGE METAL DASHBOARD (with hideous fin-like projections jutting out on some models) - MOMMY IS NOT WEARING A SEATBELT CAUSE THE CAR DOES NOT HAVE 'EM (so she will flatten the baby in a crash) - THE CAR SPEEDS ALONG AT 70 MPH ON UN-DIVIDED ROADS - WITH STURDY CAR EATING TREES JUST A FEW FEET OFF THE EDGES OF THE PAVEMENT.

Come on... your OK with that law? Well, I'm NOT "OK" with it... and I did use a car seat for my kids anyway. I'm sure there's some other law that you hate, but someone else is OK with forcing it upon you.

AutoDas
06-02-2008, 10:07 PM
Until we are allowed to privatize the roads we have to play by their rules.

christagious
06-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Until we are allowed to privatize the roads we have to play by their rules.

Good point, BUT....

I'm kinda confused when it comes to "privatizing" everything. If we privatized parks and roads, etc. wouldn't we have to pay tolls to drive on the roads, and pay to enter the parks?

If I'm wrong about this correct me and school me on this because I really don't understand this concept. This would actually make a good thread.

DamianTV
06-02-2008, 10:29 PM
It shouldnt be a law. The idea of promoting self responsibility is completely undone by having laws that "protect you from yourself". Im also a firm believer that if there is no victim, there is no crime. Now the right way, in this circumstance, to heavily promote self responsibility would be to promote the use of common sense and make people think for themselves. If you get your kid killed by, instead of strappign him into a carseat, you decide you dont have enough room in the car, or the diaper is too smelly, and strap his ass to the roof of your car with duck tape, at which point it comes loose and the kid goes flying, say into a random wood chipper, we already have laws for that. Negligent Homicide. Of course thats all within reason. Having a 2 year old just strapped in via a seatbelt and your car gets tboned by someone that ran a red light, in a case like that, the fault should go on the other party, again for Negligent Homicide. Ran a red light and killed your kid, car seat, hell anything short of a star trek intertial dampener could do anything to save the kid at that point.

But the idea that you are not allowed to take your baby out of a hospital without a carseat, um, what if you dont have a car and are taxiing it back to your pad? What, do they just keep your baby?

Ive had enough of the entire mentality "protect you from yourself", what ever the case may be, drugs, porn, alcohol, no seat belt, standing on a metal ladder in your bare feet in a pool during a lightning storm working with power tools on uninsulated electrical equipment, let darwinism take its course.

http://www.jumbojoke.com/images/safety5.jpg

We dont need laws to be passed for "Unsuccessful Negligent Suicide".

Mini-Me
06-02-2008, 10:38 PM
Until we are allowed to privatize the roads we have to play by their rules.

Is there a good thread on this? While I understand that it could potentially be non-disastrous financially (you can always buy stock shares so your dividends help to offset the payments you're making - i.e. voluntary collectivism ;)), I do wonder how much more inefficient and congested toll roads would be (unless you pay a monthly subscription, a camera scans every license plate, and anyone who passes through without a subscription gets served up with a subpoena and sued for trespassing :rolleyes:). It doesn't seem like roadside advertising would exactly cover the costs, either.

Danke
06-02-2008, 11:55 PM
Is there a good thread on this? While I understand that it could potentially be non-disastrous financially (you can always buy stock shares so your dividends help to offset the payments you're making - i.e. voluntary collectivism ;)), I do wonder how much more inefficient and congested toll roads would be (unless you pay a monthly subscription, a camera scans every license plate, and anyone who passes through without a subscription gets served up with a subpoena and sued for trespassing :rolleyes:). It doesn't seem like roadside advertising would exactly cover the costs, either.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1491867&postcount=4

angelatc
06-03-2008, 06:25 AM
I never said it wasn't, and that's kind of irrelevant when we're discussing how things should be rather than how they are. The real question is: Should it be illegal?
[LIST]

For me the difference is that the cops can see that you're driving recklessly before they pull over. If you're driving recklessly, and it turns out that you're drunk, then I'd still prefer to go back to the old days when the cops just gave you a ride home.



If so, why not have DUI laws as well? Both laws prohibit reckless behavior that doesn't necessarily violate anyone's rights - it merely poses a threat. I'm not seeing a fundamental difference between the government's authority or lack thereof on these two matters.

I could live with them if they would do away with the roadblocks. Even the Supreme Court said, in the ruling, that it was unconstitutional.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 06:28 AM
Good point, BUT....

I'm kinda confused when it comes to "privatizing" everything. If we privatized parks and roads, etc. wouldn't we have to pay tolls to drive on the roads, and pay to enter the parks?

If I'm wrong about this correct me and school me on this because I really don't understand this concept. This would actually make a good thread.

Yes. Imagine that! The people who use the amenities are the same people that pay for them.

Here in Chicago, we pay tolls and taxes. I hate the toll roads, because they slow everything down, but I'm sure if it were privatized they system would be more efficent.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-03-2008, 08:04 AM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

Here's what I did because of a law. My wife accidentally took the carseat to work. Baby fell on the floor and bumped her head. I couldn't take her to the doctor immediately for fear of prosecution.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm not an idiot. If I could have seen her brains, I would have taken her to the hospital regardless of laws. In fact, she had no signs of a concussion. But, what if she had a few signs? What if one pupil were dialated and one were not?

I don't like these laws because they take away my judgement as a parent. I probably know what's better for my kid at any given moment than any politician did when they wrote whatever law they were writing.

Same thing with laws about leaving kids unattended in cars. When stopping at a "convenience" store, it often makes more sense to leave a 1 year old unattended in a locked car for 5 minutes. Their chance of injury or death is much higher by pulling them in and out of a car, accross a parking lot, inside a store, etc. If it's 90 degrees outside, of course that's a bad idea. If it's 70 degrees, not so much.

Once again, my judgement is influenced by the thought of imprisonment, instead of the influence being 100% the welfare of my child. These laws may have a net positive impact on stupid people, but I'll say they have a negative effect on the welfare of my own child.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 08:28 AM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

Next time, tell your wife to parent her own damn kids and leave other people the hell alone.

It's not her business. Or yours, either. Children do not belong to the village.

Calling the police? Jesus, that's just wrong. It is a Nazi technique. She should be ashamed.

SeanEdwards
06-03-2008, 08:30 AM
The state has a justifiable interest in protecting the welfare of minor children.

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 08:36 AM
Aren't you a bloody idiot not to wear a seatbelt, or restrain your child?

It's just common sense.

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 08:49 AM
Why should others pay for cranial injuries or death.

Every time you wear a seatbelt you are not constraining liberties...

Only preventing serious injury or death.

Mahkato
06-03-2008, 09:08 AM
The problem with car seat laws is that they may actually be doing more harm than good.

Politicians have been regularly raising the required ages ("it's for the children!") for car seats to be used – kids have to be eight years old in some states now before they can sit without a booster. The problem with this is that a car/booster seat may actually be more dangerous, especially if it's installed incorrectly (as a large percentage of them are), than it would be to not have one at all.

What if it were actually safer to have no child over 40 pounds in a car seat, but because of the law and the social stigma, hundreds of kids were dying every year from it? Since it's illegal not to use the car seat, it would be very difficult to find out that the law was actually counterproductive. However, were there no law on car seat usage, the insurance companies would invest a lot of money in determining the safest behavior, and they would reward you with lower premiums for following it. As new safety studies came along, the market reward for following new guidelines would ensure immediate compliance.

Also, it would probably be safest to put your child inside a giant steel egg with custom-cut high-density foam padding on the inside. Perhaps we should make this a law. It would be for the children, you see.

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 09:12 AM
The problem with car seat laws is that they may actually be doing more harm than good.

Politicians have been regularly raising the required ages ("it's for the children!") for car seats to be used – kids have to be eight years old in some states now before they can sit without a booster. The problem with this is that a car/booster seat may actually be more dangerous, especially if it's installed incorrectly (as a large percentage of them are), than it would be to not have one at all.

What if it were actually safer to have no child over 40 pounds in a car seat, but because of the law and the social stigma, hundreds of kids were dying every year from it? Since it's illegal not to use the car seat, it would be very difficult to find out that the law was actually counterproductive. However, were there no law on car seat usage, the insurance companies would invest a lot of money in determining the safest behavior, and they would reward you with lower premiums for following it. As new safety studies came along, the market reward for following new guidelines would ensure immediate compliance.

Also, it would probably be safest to put your child inside a giant steel egg with custom-cut high-density foam padding on the inside. Perhaps we should make this a law. It would be for the children, you see.

Yeah, I would rather head through the windscreen.

Those collarbone injuries can be pesky...

familydog
06-03-2008, 10:30 AM
It's not her business. Or yours, either. Children do not belong to the village.

No, children do not belong to the village and they never should. It seems to me, especially nowadays, it often takes a village to raise one though. I use that term loosely of course.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 11:01 AM
The state has a justifiable interest in protecting the welfare of minor children.

I do not consider their interests justifiable, because it infringes on freedoms. Children do not and should not belong to the state. Period.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 11:07 AM
No, children do not belong to the village and they never should. It seems to me, especially nowadays, it often takes a village to raise one though. I use that term loosely of course.

Sadly, now that the state has developed an unhealthy interest in how the children are raised, people are actually less likely to take (or accept) the village approach.

When I was a kid, any grown-up was likely to scold us for bad behavior. We were also likely to listen, because if we didn't our Mom would hear about it, and then we were in twice as much trouble.

Now, people are told "not to discipline my child!" usually by parents who will not actually discipline their child. Neighbors who see a child misbehaving call the freaking police instead of yelling "Hey you kids, get off my lawn."

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 11:08 AM
I do not consider their interests justifiable, because it infringes on freedoms. Children do not and should not belong to the state. Period.


How about common sense?

Buckle up!

To associate freedom and liberty with vehicle safety is ridiculous.

Concentrate on keeping your powder dry.

SeanEdwards
06-03-2008, 11:19 AM
I do not consider their interests justifiable, because it infringes on freedoms. Children do not and should not belong to the state. Period.

It's not a question of ownership. Parents don't own their children either. It is a role of the state to protect innocent life, helpless infants and minor children in particular, since they can't defend their rights or assert sovereignty over themselves.

There's all kinds of infringements on freedoms in case you hadn't noticed. We don't live in a society based on anarchy.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 11:40 AM
How about common sense?

Buckle up!

To associate freedom and liberty with vehicle safety is ridiculous.

Concentrate on keeping your powder dry.

My kids are buckled.

But I do not think it is any of your business if they're not. They're not your kids, it's not your concern.

It's not ridiculous. Freedom and liberty don't cease to exist when I'm in the car.

Freedom also means living with the fact that other people are going to make decisions that you disagree with. I can do that.

angelatc
06-03-2008, 11:43 AM
It's not a question of ownership. Parents don't own their children either. It is a role of the state to protect innocent life, helpless infants and minor children in particular, since they can't defend their rights or assert sovereignty over themselves.

There's all kinds of infringements on freedoms in case you hadn't noticed. We don't live in a society based on anarchy.


I believe that parents do indeed own their children, up until the age of 18. They also certainly have a far more vested interests than the state.

It is not the role of the state to protect my kids, It is none of the state's business. It is the role of the parents, and then the family, to protect the children.

Yes, I have noticed the infringements on liberty. That's why I'm here. How about you?

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 11:50 AM
My kids are buckled.

But I do not think it is any of your business if they're not. They're not your kids, it's not your concern.

I have no interest in controlling your life. I have my own.

I wouldn't dob you in for having bald tires.

But...

Aren't there better ways to express yourself? How about abolishing the Patriot act?

A dead friend lying outside a car pisses me off.

HOLLYWOOD
06-03-2008, 11:53 AM
It's not a question of ownership. Parents don't own their children either. It is a role of the state to protect innocent life, helpless infants and minor children in particular, since they can't defend their rights or assert sovereignty over themselves.

There's all kinds of infringements on freedoms in case you hadn't noticed. We don't live in a society based on anarchy.

But we charge, arrest, & tired, those same minor children as adults when misdemeanor and felony crimes are committed! Not that I condemn or condone... but this country is so full of double standards... let alone way too many rules, laws, and policies. With all those way too many of everything government... government themselves only enforce what they wish to enforce, and obviously in government's favor.

Freedom, Democracy, Liberty? Not in this country... well maybe some small morsel and there's a disclaimer in fine print with each civil liberty in America today.

Sally08
06-03-2008, 11:55 AM
I believe that parents do indeed own their children, up until the age of 18.

Even the state agrees, when those minor children get in trouble!

Years ago, a "train mate" had major problems with her young teenager "simply" being truant.

She was forced (with threat of arrest, I believe) to physically appear at the principal's office with her child and hand the child over to the school district.

Then, responsibility was transferred to the school district to keep the child *in* the school.

Certainly complicates the commute to work!

pcosmar
06-03-2008, 12:06 PM
There's all kinds of infringements on freedoms in case you hadn't noticed. We don't live in a society based on anarchy.

I have noticed.
I do not want anarchy. I want personal responsibility and personal choice.
I want the Government OUT of my life, and out of the lives and choices of others.
I really hate this Nanny State shit almost as much as the Authoritarian Bullshit.

familydog
06-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Sadly, now that the state has developed an unhealthy interest in how the children are raised, people are actually less likely to take (or accept) the village approach.

When I was a kid, any grown-up was likely to scold us for bad behavior. We were also likely to listen, because if we didn't our Mom would hear about it, and then we were in twice as much trouble.

Now, people are told "not to discipline my child!" usually by parents who will not actually discipline their child. Neighbors who see a child misbehaving call the freaking police instead of yelling "Hey you kids, get off my lawn."

I completely agree. Unfortunately though, the family unit is not enough to raise children anymore. As long as this metaphorical village is not the government, and there is no coercion taking place, I'm all for "it takes a village." Not that this has anything to do with the thread topic :p

angelatc
06-03-2008, 12:12 PM
I have no interest in controlling your life. I have my own.

I wouldn't dob you in for having bald tires.
But...
Aren't there better ways to express yourself? How about abolishing the Patriot act?
A dead friend lying outside a car pisses me off.

Nope. You don't live here IIRC, so perhaps you don't have a taste for how far it's gone here.

I'm absolutely pure in my philosophies, and quite proud of that.

Ozwest
06-03-2008, 12:15 PM
Nope. You don't live here IIRC, so perhaps you don't have a taste for how far it's gone here.

I'm absolutely pure in my philosophies, and quite proud of that.

Here's to purity.

I'm not sure how far it's gone.

Sounds desperate!

christagious
06-04-2008, 12:08 AM
Here's what I did because of a law. My wife accidentally took the carseat to work. Baby fell on the floor and bumped her head. I couldn't take her to the doctor immediately for fear of prosecution.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm not an idiot. If I could have seen her brains, I would have taken her to the hospital regardless of laws. In fact, she had no signs of a concussion. But, what if she had a few signs? What if one pupil were dialated and one were not?

I don't like these laws because they take away my judgement as a parent. I probably know what's better for my kid at any given moment than any politician did when they wrote whatever law they were writing.

Same thing with laws about leaving kids unattended in cars. When stopping at a "convenience" store, it often makes more sense to leave a 1 year old unattended in a locked car for 5 minutes. Their chance of injury or death is much higher by pulling them in and out of a car, accross a parking lot, inside a store, etc. If it's 90 degrees outside, of course that's a bad idea. If it's 70 degrees, not so much.

Once again, my judgement is influenced by the thought of imprisonment, instead of the influence being 100% the welfare of my child. These laws may have a net positive impact on stupid people, but I'll say they have a negative effect on the welfare of my own child.

You make some very good points here.

christagious
06-04-2008, 12:09 AM
Next time, tell your wife to parent her own damn kids and leave other people the hell alone.

It's not her business. Or yours, either. Children do not belong to the village.

Calling the police? Jesus, that's just wrong. It is a Nazi technique. She should be ashamed.

Wow.....

Ya know we were just exercising our first amendment right, it does still exist...... to an extent. Other than that, I'm not going to bother arguing with you if you're gonna talk like that. :p

christagious
06-04-2008, 12:10 AM
The state has a justifiable interest in protecting the welfare of minor children.

Agreed, as long as it doesn't go overboard and they use "the kids" as an excuse for every law they want to pass

christagious
06-04-2008, 12:12 AM
. It seems to me, especially nowadays, it often takes a village to raise one though. I use that term loosely of course.


It's a sad truth

christagious
06-04-2008, 12:13 AM
Now, people are told "not to discipline my child!" usually by parents who will not actually discipline their child

hmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

SeanEdwards
06-04-2008, 01:46 AM
I believe that parents do indeed own their children, up until the age of 18. They also certainly have a far more vested interests than the state.

It is not the role of the state to protect my kids, It is none of the state's business. It is the role of the parents, and then the family, to protect the children.

Yes, I have noticed the infringements on liberty. That's why I'm here. How about you?

I'm here because I'm opposed to the militaristic American empire. I also disagree with some current restrictions on individual liberty, such as the drug war, and fiat currency, etc. However, I'm not willing to cede to parents the right to eat their children, so I'm not an absolutist in regards to parental rights.

I generally favor more freedom for adults. I just think there is some community responsibility to prevent abuse of children.

AutoDas
06-04-2008, 12:44 PM
SeanEdwards, are you for car seat laws?

SeanEdwards
06-04-2008, 01:05 PM
SeanEdwards, are you for car seat laws?

I don't have any opinion on that. I don't automatically assume that car seat laws are one aspect of the bilderberg groups plan for world enslavement. If a community votes to require car seats for infants as a reasonable safety measure then I can accept that. I could also accept the community rejecting the idea.

Personally, I favor duct taping brats to the roof of the vehicle so that I don't have to see or hear them while driving.

pcosmar
06-04-2008, 01:10 PM
I don't have any opinion on that. I don't automatically assume that car seat laws are one aspect of the bilderberg groups plan for world enslavement. If a community votes to require car seats for infants as a reasonable safety measure then I can accept that. I could also accept the community rejecting the idea.

Personally, I favor duct taping brats to the roof of the vehicle so that I don't have to see or hear them while driving.

In the states that I have lived in, I don't ever remember it being a ballot question. I seem to remember that it was mandated and there was a law...
I never saw a vote.

SeanEdwards
06-04-2008, 01:21 PM
In the states that I have lived in, I don't ever remember it being a ballot question. I seem to remember that it was mandated and there was a law...
I never saw a vote.

Representative government.

pcosmar
06-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Representative government.

Oh, You mean like voting for Bush(2000) to shrink Government, stay out of foreign wars and stimulate the economy and cut spending.
Or the democrats that were elected (2006) to cut the war spending and bring the troops home.

I understand now. :rolleyes:

FindLiberty
06-04-2008, 01:48 PM
The government seems to think that they already "own" all of our kids:

Car seats, Government Skool, Physical Ed and ban junk food in order to get into tip top shape in order to...
GO FIGHT IN THE NEXT WAR.

pcosmar
06-04-2008, 01:58 PM
Originally Posted by SeanEdwards
Representative government.
That's funny right there.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/050517_050523/050519_ArtsLarryCable_hu.hmedium.jpg

SeanEdwards
06-04-2008, 02:01 PM
Oh, You mean like voting for Bush(2000) to shrink Government, stay out of foreign wars and stimulate the economy and cut spending.
Or the democrats that were elected (2006) to cut the war spending and bring the troops home.

I understand now. :rolleyes:

Well, it was a good idea in theory. Sadly the theory depended on politicians with at least a little bit of integrity.

HigherVision
08-16-2012, 12:18 AM
Okay didn't most of you as kids if you were a child in the 80's or 90's simply wear a seat belt in the car, not sit in one of these stupid child seats? Yes once in a while you might have neglected to wear it but 95% of the time I was 'buckled up', but apparently now buckled up isn't good enough as society's gone completely bat shit crazy. Now the kids have to be strapped in straightjacket style into something that to me looks like it should be for 'special needs' kids if anyone. You know, kids who are a danger to themselves due to abnormalities. Who I always really felt bad for but now I feel bad for all kids.

heavenlyboy34
08-16-2012, 01:15 AM
Indeed. Punishing people because something might happen is wrong.

Children belong to the parents, not the state. Or the village.
More accurately, children are in the custody of the parents. You can't "own" another person-unless you consider slavery ethical. /nitpick ~hugs~

heavenlyboy34
08-16-2012, 01:20 AM
Okay didn't most of you as kids if you were a child in the 80's or 90's simply wear a seat belt in the car, not sit in one of these stupid child seats? Yes once in a while you might have neglected to wear it but 95% of the time I was 'buckled up', but apparently now buckled up isn't good enough as society's gone completely bat shit crazy. Now the kids have to be strapped in straightjacket style into something that to me looks like it should be for 'special needs' kids if anyone. You know, kids who are a danger to themselves due to abnormalities. Who I always really felt bad for but now I feel bad for all kids.
+1 I grew up in the 80s-90s too. Today's kids tend to have poorer lives (moreso in immaterial ways than material) than I did. I haz teh sad. I don't have any kids, but my cousins do. It really makes concrete how horrible TPTB are-these poor kids' lives have been effectively sold before they were even born by politicians, cronies, bankers, etc. :(

angelatc
08-16-2012, 08:00 AM
Just wondering what everybody here thinks about the carseat laws for infants? With all the arguing about DUI laws, and "Click it or ticket" I'm just curious how you all feel about the carseat laws. You can argue that it's your right to put your infant in a carseat or not and that your car is your property, but I think that's an unfair position because the infant isn't being given the choice as to whether or not they want to be safe or not. Same could go for the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument too, I guess. But anyways... Carseat laws, how do you all feel?

Children do not belong to the state, therefore the state has no legitimate interest in them.

PaulConventionWV
08-16-2012, 08:17 AM
Just wondering what everybody here thinks about the carseat laws for infants? With all the arguing about DUI laws, and "Click it or ticket" I'm just curious how you all feel about the carseat laws. You can argue that it's your right to put your infant in a carseat or not and that your car is your property, but I think that's an unfair position because the infant isn't being given the choice as to whether or not they want to be safe or not. Same could go for the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument too, I guess. But anyways... Carseat laws, how do you all feel?

It's still pre-crime. When we find ourselves trying to protect others without even knowing what the others really want, that's when you know it's time to turn around. Laws don't protect people. Laws for carseats are just like the government telling you what you can feed your kid and taking you to jail if you don't comply. It's still bureacratical absurdity because it is tyranny masquerading as protection. I challenge anyone to tell me how it's different.

Philhelm
08-16-2012, 09:00 AM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

Calling the cops would have statistically increased the chances of the newborn dying.

ninepointfive
08-16-2012, 09:37 AM
I have a pickup with an extra cab - so apparently rear facing carseats are illegal to put in the front seat because of an airbag - even though I have a switch to turn it off. So I need to buy another car/taxes/reg/insurance on this just because of some damn politican!

the switch turns it off, but I still can't use the front seat apparently.

LibertyRevolution
08-16-2012, 11:13 AM
No punishment for pre-crime, period.

^^This

Thread was answered in post #5

LibertyRevolution
08-16-2012, 11:16 AM
I have a pickup with an extra cab - so apparently rear facing carseats are illegal to put in the front seat because of an airbag - even though I have a switch to turn it off. So I need to buy another car/taxes/reg/insurance on this just because of some damn politican!

the switch turns it off, but I still can't use the front seat apparently.

My subaru legacy has the automatic shut off on the front passenger air bag..
When my girlfriend sits in the chair, if she doesn't sit just right, it turns airbag off.
I am not a fan of this new switch..

Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 11:27 AM
Slips, trips and falls around the home result in over 25,000 deaths every year, nearly equal to the murder and car accident death rate.

Therefore, I propose that every citizen be mandated to wear a safety helmet and fall restraining gear prior to leaving your bed at the start of your day.

I further propose that "in home" surveillance be placed in every residential home along with random home "safety inspections", to monitor for full compliance.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 11:35 AM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

I know I'm speaking to a "dead" account in a vampire thread, but still, this needs to be addressed.

Do you realize the ramifications of what would have happened had you done so, how much damage you could have caused?

By that one simple act, sadly not taken because you wised up, but because you figured that the state's enforcer's could not arrive quickly enough, you could conceivably have torn that family apart, with children ending up taken by the state and one or both parents thrown in prison.

Who the fuck are you to have that kind of power?

Just because they were not following "safety rules" that you happen to agree with and have "no problem" with.

There is our problem right there, and why we fail.

Czolgosz
08-16-2012, 11:38 AM
What they've all stated + it's good for the environment to have fewer people.

ninepointfive
08-16-2012, 11:39 AM
My subaru legacy has the automatic shut off on the front passenger air bag..
When my girlfriend sits in the chair, if she doesn't sit just right, it turns airbag off.
I am not a fan of this new switch..

The one I have is set by a key, meaning no sensors to fail for seat weight

HigherVision
08-16-2012, 04:21 PM
+1 I grew up in the 80s-90s too. Today's kids tend to have poorer lives (moreso in immaterial ways than material) than I did. I haz teh sad. I don't have any kids, but my cousins do. It really makes concrete how horrible TPTB are-these poor kids' lives have been effectively sold before they were even born by politicians, cronies, bankers, etc. :(

I blame a lot of it on the fact that even in the past 20 years society has devolved into a matriarchy to an even greater extent. I wouldn't be surprised if kids one day in the future really are wearing helmets to school and stuff. The matriarchy puts the false notion of absolute security above any and all remnants of human freedom, which is considered evil. Read this (http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=214322) forum conversation for an example.

"DS is 8 1/2, 55 lbs, 4' 5". We are in Cali & if Im understanding the new law right he has to be 49" before he can ride w/out a booster, right? But is it overkill to have him in a highjack booster, rather than a backless one?"

"No, you are not being over protective. You are doing your job as a parent to keep your child as safe as possible. Way to go!"

Not just keep them safe, keep them as safe as possible. That's the prevailing attitude among mothers (the parent who holds prime authority today) and an ominous sign for the future.

The Free Hornet
08-16-2012, 04:36 PM
My subaru legacy has the automatic shut off on the front passenger air bag..
When my girlfriend sits in the chair, if she doesn't sit just right, it turns airbag off.
I am not a fan of this new switch..

Sounds like she's not a Danke girl. Someone that petite might be better off without the airbag.

PaulConventionWV
08-16-2012, 05:41 PM
Technically, children belong to themselves, although the parents have first say in how best to protect their children while they're not yet self-sufficient. If parents directly infringe upon the natural rights of their children (by, say, tying their kid's thumbs down so he won't suck them, which later requires amputation - that's actually happened, btw), they can and should be held responsible by the state in the same way that some random stranger should.

Putting their child's life at risk is something different, I agree, but it's essentially the same principle as putting some random person's life at risk (e.g. drunk driving). Carseat laws and DUI laws are definitely connected, since they're based upon this same premise, but...I do think it's an open question whether or not acting recklessly and putting someone's life at risk is inherently a violation of their rights.

So, if you are arguing that carseat laws are valid because they affect other people, then you should have no problems with laws against texting while driving and other absurd infringements on our freedom. So many laws are validated simply because they effect other people. The state has intervened to tell people what their children can eat, drink, and do, and yet we wouldn't want the same treatment for ourselves.

Muwahid
08-16-2012, 05:45 PM
Trust me, some people do use them because of a law. First of all, most hospitals won't let you leave with your newborn unless you have a carseat. And.... A few weeks ago my wife and I saw these two people driving down the road and the woman in the passenger front seat was holding a newborn. My wife yelled out the window at them because of their irresponsibility and we were half tempted to call the police but we figured by the time somebody actually got out to find them the people would have turned down another road and found their way home anyways. I have no problem with the carseat law because if people can't be responsible and keep their infant safe then somebody needs to.

Why try to act like a hero? How do you know their situation? What if their carseat broke, and they had no other means of transportation? Call the police?

A mother holding a baby isn't the same as leaving a baby unrestrained in a car, we don't literally need a nanny state. When they rode around on horses did they need to make similar precautions or were people just not idiots?

PaulConventionWV
08-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other. Murdering children is illegal because it's a violation of their inherent rights. Similarly, tying their thumbs down so long they need to be amputated is also a violation of their rights - it's bodily violence against another human being, regardless of how dependent that human being is. As I said, deliberate acts of violence are no more legitimate coming from parents than from anyone else, since children are living beings with inherent rights, not property owned by parents. I'm guessing this is not the part you disagree with, correct?

I agree with you that there's a distinction between deliberate violence and reckless stupidity, and that's why I said that it's an open question whether reckless stupidity can in and of itself violate someone else's rights. You hold that it cannot ("Either we are free to be stupid, or we're not"), whereas I'm on the fence.

There are already laws against wanton destruction and manslaughter. I think those are valid laws. If someone kills someone else, even if it's just by accident, then they deserve to be punished, but not until actual destruction occurs. I'm not sure what laws exist regarding accidental injury; perhaps somebody could help me out. It stands, though, that pre-crime is a ridiculous notion that leads only to more ridiculous notions about state protection. If you accidentally do something that results in the injury of someone else, you can be sued. If you directly injure them by accident, I'm sure there are other laws that deal with that somewhere but I just can't find them right now.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 06:26 PM
+rep


I blame a lot of it on the fact that even in the past 20 years society has devolved into a matriarchy to an even greater extent. I wouldn't be surprised if kids one day in the future really are wearing helmets to school and stuff. The matriarchy puts the false notion of absolute security above any and all remnants of human freedom, which is considered evil. Read this (http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=214322) forum conversation for an example.

"DS is 8 1/2, 55 lbs, 4' 5". We are in Cali & if Im understanding the new law right he has to be 49" before he can ride w/out a booster, right? But is it overkill to have him in a highjack booster, rather than a backless one?"

"No, you are not being over protective. You are doing your job as a parent to keep your child as safe as possible. Way to go!"

Not just keep them safe, keep them as safe as possible. That's the prevailing attitude among mothers (the parent who holds prime authority today) and an ominous sign for the future.

PaulConventionWV
08-16-2012, 07:28 PM
Tear up ALL those laws or I will vomit.

Let Darwin sort out the gene pool if stupid parents kill off all their offspring.

It's not ever gonna happen - Parents tend to protect their children even without (or in spite of) help from the government.

BTW, humans somehow survived before the car seat! Mommy held my widdle body IN HER ARMS - IN THE FRONT SEAT - BAYBY'S SOFT SCULL INCHES FROM A HEAVY GUAGE METAL DASHBOARD (with hideous fin-like projections jutting out on some models) - MOMMY IS NOT WEARING A SEATBELT CAUSE THE CAR DOES NOT HAVE 'EM (so she will flatten the baby in a crash) - THE CAR SPEEDS ALONG AT 70 MPH ON UN-DIVIDED ROADS - WITH STURDY CAR EATING TREES JUST A FEW FEET OFF THE EDGES OF THE PAVEMENT.

Come on... your OK with that law? Well, I'm NOT "OK" with it... and I did use a car seat for my kids anyway. I'm sure there's some other law that you hate, but someone else is OK with forcing it upon you.

Put down the crack pipe, bro.