|
Manditory Speed Control Device on Your Vehicle
Politics with a Liberal Bias |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 June 2007 May 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June My Links Candidates on the Issues Young Democrats of America MoveOn.org Alan Colmes DNC.org Air America The New York Times Reuters 9/11 Conspiracy Theory tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
by The JavaScript Source
|
posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.24.06 (9:03 pm) Reply to: breakouttheglass I do the same thing. I love to drive fast and I do it quite frequently. The problem is we don't worry about our driving ability. To us, we all know what our vehicle is capable of and how to handle it. That is where we are wrong though. We are surrounded by hundreds of pounds of metal and sitting on gallons of explosive and very flamable liquid. What we really worry about is the other driver on the roadway that is driving over the speed limit. Do you ever catch yourself cursing at an "idot" for driving excessively and the next day you do the exact same thing but its ok???? I do it all the time. The sad part is, in any instant while driving it can all end in a blink of an eye and there is nothing we can do about it. Maybe driving slower and more carefully can prevent some of these fatalities. posted by: taralynn (reply) post date: 10.24.06 (9:20 pm) Ok, so common sense says this is not a bad idea. But more and more I've found myself getting frustrated with governmental intrusion into our lives especially after studying the law. My first reaction when reading your proposal was a HELL no. I have a right to drive fast if I want to. Well, is it really a right or a privilege? I think many people confuse the two issues. But after reading further I see the logical argument and definately would go for it if it effected my pocket book. Also, there is a good argument that it's in the best interest of society and would serve a public good. I really can't think of any real good counter argument (as of yet, it's kind of late and I'm all thought out) other than it's another example of governments intrusion into our daily lives. I guess it just goes down to choice. We have the choice to risk being pulled over for speeding or not. We have a choice to risk getting pulled over for not wearing our seatbelts or talking on our cell phones (I'm in NY remember, no talking while driving, just attempting to plug in the hands free set, dialing and driving). We have the choice to obey societal rules or not. I guess I find it hard to ultimately take away that choice, although I'm sure their are many instances in which this is the case. I guess the big problem would be weighing taking the choice away versus public policy and which supercedes. I don't have any thoughts right now on that... Anyway, I wanted to drop you a line and say hi. Keep up the good work. posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.24.06 (9:28 pm) Reply to: taralynn It's always a pleasure to hear from you. Your opinions are always welcomed here. I had a feeling this is how you'd feel about this issue. I don't know how I feel. I'm up in the air on this one as of right now. I believe in the right to choose (except on abortion) but I also believe that anything the government can do to save lives should be imposed. I'm trying to figure out which part of me wants to take control on issues like this. This reminds me of one of your post about the boy who refused to take his medical treatment while the government is forcing him to. I believe in personal choice but I also believe that in the preservation of human life even if it takes government involvement. posted by: taralynn (reply) post date: 10.24.06 (9:50 pm) But, do you believe in preservation of human life even if it takes government involvement for people who do not want to live? You can't force people to live. And I don't believe we should force people to live or not live according to our own personal beliefs. I don't know, I see and respect your beliefs, but when it comes to my life and choices, I cringe at the idea of someone dictating to me how to live or die. I guess I value having the choice and accepting the consequences of my actions versus having things mandated to me and having the choice removed. But, it's a very complicated issue... and I think I'm up in the air as well... but I would be more for the insurance providing a choice to people... posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.24.06 (9:55 pm) Reply to: taralynn We are beginning to see eye to eye now. You make a great point when you said that you can't force someone to live when they don't want to. I do believe in the right to have a choice in that case. It's my life, I am the one resonsible for it and it should ultimately be my decision to do what I want with it. posted by: commontater (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (12:04 am) Good question, Fruge, as it's easy to see both sides of this with some of the examples noted. I'm thinking about some ways it could hinder someone from trying to avoid a wreck by gunning their car out of danger (something I've seen up close and personal recently.) Having lived in Minnesota and been on the road going north from Braham to Duluth, going 70 mph is a reasonable speed due to the lack of traffic and mostly linear roads. However, doing the same thing on the DC beltway at 70 mph, which they do now routinely, is insane. I think I come down on the side of not wanting anymore .government intrusion into my life, though. A good part of freedom is choice. Being able to choose one's way of living is essential to the concept of freedom. I think of people who smoke and don't feel free anymore because of the constraints on smoking in public places. Or the .government wanting to put constraints on the type of foods we can eat because more people are fat. I think a better approach is educating people up front - in the case of driving - better to start with good driving principles, teaching defensive driving and the dangers of speeding and the consequences of being in a bad wreck and how it can change your life forever, curtail your freedom because of extreme injury or paying for damages, etc. I think the most powerful commercial I've seen in a long while is the one where the principal of a school drops a car from the roof of a building and the viewer is told, "this drop is equivalent of a car going 40 mph and the damage it incurs." And then drops another one from a taller building and told it's going 55 mph and one sees the damage to the car. It's pretty impressive. So, for me, bottom line is I wouldn't want a governor installed in my car. However, alot of cars from 2000 and upward already have little black boxes that tell your insurance company how fast you were going when you had your wreck. I think taralynn sums it up pretty well for me. Life should be one of choices if its to be free. Besides, let them put mandatory governors on our cars and before we know it, the .government will be telling us how many snores we're allowed during the night ;> PuC posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (8:25 am) Reply to: commontater You make some pretty good points Tater. Like I told Tara, I'm still up in the air on this one. I'm all for the right to chose and to live your life as you please but when your actions are greatly affecting a lot of other people around you then I'm not too sure. Educating people better would be a great part. Once presented all the concenquinces, dangers, and risk, you do tend to look at things a little bit differently. posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (8:28 am) Reply to: LadyG You answered the question about should it be manditory but what if the insurance company gives you a decrease on your rates to have it installed? Are you still against it? I guarantee you that if I could poll people, most of them would be against it at first but once you mention insurance rates, then they would probably start thinking about it a little differently. posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (9:03 am) I do not want the government mandating a speed governor on our cars. One reason is because there are places where 70 mph should be an optional speed limit, and the government knows that- such as isolated stretches of interstate highway. Also, I think a governor would limit the power of the engine- something needed when climbing hills or having to quickly avoid a semi or breakouttheglass. Thus it could be dangerous. Now if the insurance company wants to offer an incentive, or a parent wants to restrict the vehicle of his teenager, then that's o.k. because we are talking about personal choices and not government intrusion. One more thought: Let's say a driver proves himself to be a cronic and dangerous speeder- then, I think the law could require a governor on that person's vehicle. posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (11:13 am) Reply to: PastorDave So your saying this should be used for a punishment to dangerous drivers on the roadway. I can respect that, but wouldn't that be a form of government control? Based on what I hear you saying, it sounds to me that you believe that a person should have the right to choose in a case like this. Based on your occupation, shouldn't you want laws to protect all human beings? Shouldn't you want to ensure the preservation of human life at all costs? I'm not saying that what you believe is wrong, I'm just trying to figure out where exactly are you coming from with this. You don't believe in a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion but you believe that when a law could prevent just as many deaths, you say you don't want the government's involvement and believe that people should have the right to make their own choices. I'm trying really hard to follow your reasoning on this one Pastor. If you've noticed, I haven't exactly stated my opinion on this matter either. That is because I'm not sure what I believe. I'm split between the two sides. Part of me is agreeing with you in the belief that people should have to right to choose but another part of me is believing that if something can be done to protect thousands of innocent people from being killed then that should be the way to go. I still have no idea where I stand on this issue. posted by: Chuba (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (11:49 am) I'm not quite sure where I'm at on the issue. Yes I agree when it comes to teens and their wreckless ways, I was a teen once myslef so I'm familiar with the speed demons within, and I also agree when it comes to the insurance offering an incentive. But I have a question, if this governor thing becomes law, will it effect all highway drivers? Including the huge 18-wheelers? I have to drive home on the interstate, and I'm not saying I always follow the speed limit but for the most part I do, but if anyone travels the interstate they know to watch out for the big wheels. I cant tell how many times I have almost been run over or off the road b/c of those maniacs. And it's worse in the rain. If the gov. is going to enforce this policy, they better enforce it on everyone. posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (7:29 pm) Reply to: tfruge1 When a person breaks the law, and I am talking about a serious and not a trivial matter, then he/she forfeits some privileges. When you show a tendency to threaten the lives of others with your driving, then you must be controlled for their sake. A governor placed on the engine of the car makes sense for this purpose. After a specified time, when this person proves to again be a safe driver, then the governor can be taken off. Now, you say I don't believe in a woman's right to choose when it comes to an abortion. Have you read some of my recent blogs? I hate abortion; it is a troublesome matter. But I am a qualified Pro-Choice. I support RU-486. I support a woman's legal right to an abortion during the first trimester. Of that, I believe the first 6 weeks are strictly a private matter, and I have little problem with the choice. But, I would want to convince a woman considering an abortion after the first 6 weeks to keep her developing fetus. After the first trimester, I support severe governmental restrictions, and after viability I support criminalization of abortion- including partial birth. So, I guess all that makes me pro-choice with a big asterisk. And I'm consistent, being pro-choice with driving also, but with another asterisk. posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (7:39 pm) Reply to: truthserum41 Where I live, some college students recently did a test about the speed limit on the metro freeways. The speed limits is posted at 55 mph, but almost no one drives under 65. These guys took their cars and lined up, side by side, driving down the freeway at 55 mph. It was not long until thay had a string of cars behind them for miles and miles. Traffic jams and danger resulted. It's dangerous to drive too slow, also. I've seen a pattern about governmental regulation with my driving. Intrusion disintegrates into corruption. Traffic regulation becomes a source of income for local municipalities, which leads to abuse. Our municipality requires yearly vehicle emissions testing. It has decintigrated into a scam to make money off the consumers. Temporary toll roads become permanent sources of income. A penny-sales-tax for road construction becomes a permanent tax. So, I just want the government to leave me alone, and be as unobtrusive as possible. I do not want them to try to force me to save money on gas. I'll bet you can find some clear inconsistencies in this logic! posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.25.06 (8:06 pm) Reply to: PastorDave Please don't get the idea that I am attacking you and your views. I respect them and I believe that you have the right to believe in whatever you want to believe. I too have the same beliefs of abortion as you only that I believe that an abortion is just only before 3 weeks. Citing one of your recent post, a fetus begins a heartbeat at 3 weeks and this is where my belief of life is started. I would urge women not to have an abortion but before this 3 week period, I believe this is a person decision. Tomorrow I will publish a post entitled "Liberals Right to Choose". Here I will talk about the right to choose and should you really have this much freedom of your own decisions. I believe in the right to choose but like you said "with a big asterisk". I will further discuess this but I believe the right to choose stops when other lives are at stake and you are endangering others around you. posted by: commontater (reply) post date: 10.26.06 (1:49 am) Reply to: tfruge1 See, I think what you're proposing is very reasonable on the surface, Fruge. It's really hard to come up with a good reason for not installing these governors to monitor driving habits, except that it would be another thing controlled by law enforcement. And I agree with Pastor Dave that all these attempts at regulation will take the onus off personal responsibility for our own actions over onto a system that's arbitrary in meting out fines and punishments for not following the rules. I see all the delving into our personal habits and making laws around them is 'mission creep'. The .government just doesn't know where to stop and is ever-expanding their jurisdiction over our lives. When we let them monitor our behvior, we're sending a message that we *do* want a Nanny state because we're 'out of control' and need the .gov to intercede in our lives to make us fly straight. All these numerous attempts at monitoring our habits is an attempt, in my opinion, to get us all marching in lock-step according to rules and regulations, and if we step out of line we are fined or sent to the pokey. Over the last 20 years numerous laws have been passed and we're throwing more and more people in jail and have created a prison cottage industry. Someone saw there was money to be made and built more and more prisons, and now they *have* to be at *full capacity* or they lose money. There will need to be people trained and in position to 'read' these governors, come up with standards of some sort and then the original idea will be enlarged and expanded as time goes on. I just think it all boils down to being taught at home, at school, and at church the fundamentals of becoming a productive citizen, helping others, being courteous, obeying rules & regulations in your own community etc. We as a People are not doing such a good job at teaching our kids what it means to be an honest pillar in the community. Instead, we just write more laws, throw more people in jail, and give our lives over to a Nanny state that wants more and more control over our lives. We hand more and more money over to the .gov and insurance companies and when it comes time for them to make good on our claims, they let us down, i.e., people who are still embroiled in the Hurricane Katrina debacle in getting insurance money from DHS. I think we need to take back our lives, our country and our pride from our handlers. I know I've said more than is warranted here, bringing in all kinds of other examples of .gov control over our lives, and I won't say anything more, except to say that on the surface, many things look good that benefit the whole, but when examined under a microscope, subtle cracks can be found in the overall premise and it's always the 'controller' that stands to gain overall. This is just my opinion, and YMMV :> PuC posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 10.26.06 (3:14 am) Reply to: tfruge1 I don't think you are attacking me. I was thinking you were seeking clarification of my positions. And if I cannot respond to your challenge with at least some logic and persuasion, then my position would be weak. So there is no problem here. Behind my position is a desire for less government. It's a fundamental political philosophy. posted by: tfruge1 (reply) post date: 10.26.06 (8:27 am) Reply to: commontater Great response you just wrote. Well said. You make some very interesting points and I actually do agree with most of it. I really didn't expect to get so many comments and responses from this hypothetical question but one thing I can conclude is the majority of the people that responded are getting fed up with government involvement in their personal lives. I do agree with that some bit. My newest post talks about the right to choose and when is it too much. I would love to hear your comments on that. I have a feeling we stand a little divided on that issue. You'll probably see it too once you read my stance on it. As always, thanks for the comments and they are well respected here at Slanted Left. |
Political Party Beliefs Know Your Candidates Political Podcasts
|
