Helmet laws suck?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Again... The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. It's a slippery slope once we start allowing the government this sort of power... First helmet laws... the seatbelts... now the government is in the business of telling us what food we can and cannot eat... What's next?



Jesus. Who dropped a duece in your Cheerios?



It's all relative.

they are already starting it, have you seen that fucking gonna vote myself a third term bloomberg is trying to force new yorkers to lower their salt intake? government regulating the ingredients in food is fucking insanity

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Dave

they are already starting it, have you seen that fucking gonna vote myself a third term bloomberg is trying to force new yorkers to lower their salt intake? government regulating the ingredients in food is fucking insanity

I know... Total bullshit.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Shouldn't you have the right to learn to make good decisions?

I am a big fan of anarchy... People use the word like it's a bad thing...

but the rules like wearing a helmet are the same as a hand rail and a do not enter sign on a cliff edge... there's no doubt what that choice is a bad one. no positive comes from it... even if your not killed your severely injured. and ask anyone who's gone down with out a helmet... I'm sure all of them... the ones that lived... will say they're gonna wear a helmet next time... that's if they fair well enough to have the choice.

the reason for laws like these is this mistake is so FINAL. it's one thing to make a bad decision about lunch and pay for it by shitting your pants in a meeting. it's another to give in to peer pressure and not wear a helmet, get in an accident at the very best have a nasty scar and maybe a concussion... at worst... death.


because with out rules you can not have a society... we wouldn't have 99% of what we have today. no roads, no cities, we'd basically be cavemen...

Originally Posted by Dave

they are already starting it, have you seen that fucking gonna vote myself a third term bloomberg is trying to force new yorkers to lower their salt intake? government regulating the ingredients in food is fucking insanity

now that is bs

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Ebbs15

but the rules like wearing a helmet are the same as a hand rail and a do not enter sign on a cliff edge... there's no doubt what that choice is a bad one. no positive comes from it... even if your not killed your severely injured. and ask anyone who's gone down with out a helmet... I'm sure all of them... the ones that lived... will say they're gonna wear a helmet next time... that's if they fair well enough to have the choice.

the reason for laws like these is this mistake is so FINAL. it's one thing to make a bad decision about lunch and pay for it by shitting your pants in a meeting. it's another to give in to peer pressure and not wear a helmet, get in an accident at the very best have a nasty scar and maybe a concussion... at worst... death.


because with out rules you can not have a society... we wouldn't have 99% of what we have today. no roads, no cities, we'd basically be cavemen...



now that is bs

The correlation between helmet laws and a sign indicating a cliff is a ridiculously far stretch. The difference clearly is one requires an action the other provides an option.

Your second point readily identifies what I see as the root problem... If you are weak minded enough to give in to peer pressure that could result in your death, maybe death isn't the worst thing in the world.

Where there's money, there's progress... Anarchy does not negate the ability for either or both to exist.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

The correlation between helmet laws and a sign indicating a cliff is a ridiculously far stretch. The difference clearly is one requires an action the other provides an option.

Your second point readily identifies what I see as the root problem... If you are weak minded enough to give in to peer pressure that could result in your death, maybe death isn't the worst thing in the world.

Where there's money, there's progress... Anarchy does not negate the ability for either or both to exist.

the correlation was in the fact that they're such drastic results for a simple choice. but yeah a bit of a stretch

true... I have little tolerance for peer pressure... but I'd be a liar if I said I've never given in to it... I'd guess even you've succumb to it at least once in your life... even if it was to kill the local hooker...

but ok... so even with out peer pressure... you can make a bad decision like not wearing a helmet with out anyone saying anything... yet the results are so final...

no one argues the fact that wearing a helmet will improve the chances of you surviving a accident 10x+ and since the choice is so black and white... why not remove that?

I mean if your dead set on not wearing a helmet... you can do so... illegally or on your private land. just be ready to pay the consequences... hopefully it's only monetary.


as far as Anarchy... it doesn't directly prohibit progress... but there would be no money in an society of anarchy... you'd need rules and structure to have money... or it's just pretty paper.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Ebbs15

the correlation was in the fact that they're such drastic results for a simple choice. but yeah a bit of a stretch

true... I have little tolerance for peer pressure... but I'd be a liar if I said I've never given in to it... I'd guess even you've succumb to it at least once in your life... even if it was to kill the local hooker...

but ok... so even with out peer pressure... you can make a bad decision like not wearing a helmet with out anyone saying anything... yet the results are so final...

no one argues the fact that wearing a helmet will improve the chances of you surviving a accident 10x+ and since the choice is so black and white... why not remove that?

I mean if your dead set on not wearing a helmet... you can do so... illegally or on your private land. just be ready to pay the consequences... hopefully it's only monetary.


as far as Anarchy... it doesn't directly prohibit progress... but there would be no money in an society of anarchy... you'd need rules and structure to have money... or it's just pretty paper.

Who run Bartertown?

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Who run Bartertown?

ahh yes... I got caught up on the term "money" you'd still need rules to create a town... even villages have rules in place... so at what point does it stop?