Incidentally, you snipped the attribution from your post, and I can't
remember whose the post was you quoted. Anyway...

On Thursday 25 Sep 2003 12:49, Ron Tipton wrote:

> 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.

You know that thing... erm... what do they call it? Oh, yes: democracy.
It's the people that decide who governs them, isn't it? Excuse my sarcasm,
but I can't resist when the examples you quote are so ridiculous and borne
by paranoia. I'll paraphrase what I wrote in the original thread:

I simply don't buy this "personal liberties" argument. Along with personal
liberties and freedoms come personal responsibilities. If you want the
full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt (Vanagon content,
please note) you should have it. Just also accept the personal
responsibily for your medical bill when you have an accident.

The fact is that most people would struggle to foot a bill running into
hundreds of thousands, so they really don't have a choice. The "personal
liberty" argument is void if for that reason only because we wouldn't let
our fellow members of society go without treatment so desperatly needed.
However, if our society will foot the bill for you, i.e. take
responsibility for you, it's not unreasonable to a expect society to set
out a few ground rules - and it is "society" which pays, not "the
government". I'm sure those using this "personal liberties" argument would
have no problems accepting medical treatment that they couldn't pay for
themselves, so why is it such an issue to have conditions attached?

This is not a personal attack, I just *really* get fed up with these vague
arguments that people like to quote in discussion which, in reality, they
negate by acceptance of the provisions that the society they live in
offer. If we're talking about our moral or social priciples, let's at
least be consistent about it.

We're not talking about something stupid like a government that wants to
forbid red shirts. We're talking about minimising the cost to society
which is caused by accidents exacerbated by individual choices. I don't
think it's unreasonable for those of us who pay for the damage to have a
say in damage limitation. *That* is what being responsible is about.
--
Tim PGP Key ID: 525e6a47
Available from http://pgp.mit.edu