[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The fallacy of DRLs
In article <charles.day-0709951401450001@cday.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Charles Day <charles.day@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
}In article <42krjp$5fa@news.iag.net>, firebug@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
}
}> Seatbelt laws should not be in place, let alone enforced. The government has
}> no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.
}
}Whether you like it or not, Firebug, the government does have the right to
}pass laws to protect people from themselves. It's set out in the Constitution.
Only if you abuse one of the general welfare clauses in a way
specifically anticipated and denied in the Federalist Papers.
}But you really agree with me, since you advocate changing the law to make
}it harder to obtain a driving license.
He might, but I don't. IMO, the idea that people need the
government's permission to use public roads is repugnant. The only
reason the government managed to do it is because the novelty of the
automobile gave them the opportunity. Can you imagine people in the
19th century accepting that they get the government's permission
before driving their carriages?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@pond.com russotto@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
References: