>    When mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia (and indeed
>    seatbelt laws too) the motivation was more about keeping the cost of
>    post-accident medical costs down,pressured by insurance companies.
>    Afterall,they only like taking our money,not giving it back.
>
>    Prime motivation was cost saving,not regulating our activities or freedoms
>    although I conceed,that's been a by-product.

Of course, the reason is cost saving.  However, once we accept the principle
that cost savings is a legitimate reason for the government to take freedom
from us what's to keep that same government from using that principle to
take other freedoms?  Perhaps a law requiring an hour of exercise per day?
Or maybe outlawing meat?  Or outlawing motorcycles?  Or outlawing driving
all together - after all public transportation is cheaper?  Maybe we should
require at least six people to live in each house - it would save money on
energy if there were less empty space to light/heat/cool.  The principle can
be used for complete control of all aspects of our lives.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It
is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people
against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but
they mean to be masters."
- Daniel Webster

r

Ron Tipton
uther@dragonhome.org