From: wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:35:49 GMT
Organization: Houston UNIX Users Group (HOUNIX), Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec13.161531.2323@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>
>A person should not be required to protect themselves from themselves.
>The old argument that the government pays for your mistakes so the
>government should have a say in your behavior is bunk.  If it costs to
>much to provide protection for a person's behavior then the payments
>should stop, not the freedom of individual action. Costs are not an
>acceptable excuse to limit freedom.
>
>In addition, I firmly support the rights of stupid people to weed
>themselves out of the gene pool in whatever activity they choose to
>participate in.
>
>I also find it a little humorous to see bicycle riders all of a sudden
>concerned about their freedoms when they didn't seem to give a rats
>ass about the helmet issue when it concerned motorcycle riders.
>
>The "paranoid" predictions made during the motorcycle helmet law
>arguments are coming to pass, we now have mandatory seatbelt laws,
>helmet laws for bicyclists, and eventually we will see the outright
>elimination of dangerous sports such as bicycle/motorcycle riding.
>
>Next to be eliminated will be skiing (water and snow), cars, and
>private airplanes. After all, these activities are not necessary or
>there are safer alternatives. And the government will have its hands
>full just providing care for our rapidly growing older population. So
>the government won't be able to pay for the injuries all these other
>non-normal activities cause.
>
>Perhaps these activities will not be eliminated in that order or
>others will be eliminated first. But if the government is not
>stopped from trying to be your "mom" you will find all of your rights,
>not just your right to the pursuit of happiness, eventually gone; for
>your own safety of course.
>
>I know, I know, the founding fathers meant something a little
>different when they were talking about the pursuit of happiness. But
>it sounded good and it really is not that far off from what they were
>talking about.....
>
What you don't seem to know is that "pursuit of happiness"
is part of the Declaration of Independence, and thereore
has absolutely no legal basis nor bearing.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America has a somewhat similar phrase ( that is, the
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness phrase ) but's it's
intent is to protect the people from oppressive government,
not to assure the people the freedom to do whatever they
wish.

That phrase from the Constitution is

     No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty
     or property without due process of law ....

In the case of these helmit laws ( both bicycle and
motorcycle ) there was due process law, and there
laws were well within the overall purpose of the
Constitution:

   to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
     provide for the common defense, promote the
     general welfare, and to secure the blessings of
     liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.


-- 
-- Ward Larkin
   wlarkin@hounix.org
Newsgroups: seattle.general