RON PAUL-icy question

The first seat belts were put in Tucker autos around 1948. Tucker's also incorporated a bunch of other safety features...I believe safety glass and headlights that would turn to light up the road better when going around a corner. Even though Tucker was not successful for many reasons...these ideas can come around and are many times implemented before the Feds did anything. Hybrids have come into being because of consumer demand and Toyota went with it and are now dominating because the people want it. That is how the market works.

======================================================
Federal Reserve to the American People:

"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

There aren't any federal seat belt laws NOW. It's all state.
www.paulforronpaul.com

I happen to love ice cream (the kind bought in the store, cuz i am too lazy to find a cow and milk it) but ice cream, pasteurized , is very bad for me and makes me ill. So, I shouldn't eat it, but sometimes I want to and do. Now really, should the government tell me I can't eat it because it isn't good for me? Same with seat belts. I wear one, but I hate that the government tells me to!!!!

States

I've haven't heard any such thing myself. On the onset the question appears fairly goofy when you ask it without specifics and references. I'm not knocking you personally but it's questions like these out of that come out of the blue (again without references of any kind) that seem to smack of silliness. Correct me if I'm wrong and if he's ever addressed this issue. It's always been a state issue as far as I know and he's directly supportive of states deciding their laws and not the feds.

Should people be FORCED to where seatbelts? NO.
Should you get a ticket for NOT wearing seatbelts? NO

Are you completely outta your mind for NOT wearing a seatbelt? YES ;)

I don't know, but I'll bet Ron Paul wears a seat belt from time to time and makes that choice not because it is a law but because he thinks it increases safety.

I hope people can understand that under the Libertarian philosophy, it's not that someone would be against wearing seatbelts or having their children wear seat belts, it's about not passing nanny state bills and laws, or "laws for your own good". I doubt Ron Paul supports a seat belt law, but then I don't know. I'm just going back to his Libertarian philosophy and I would assume he would not support such interference in personal liberty.

No one is stopping anyone from wearing a seatbelt, but why do we need to mandate it? Because our government is obsessed with telling us what is best for us as if we can't figure anything out all on our own.

I personally am all for wearing a seat belt and I am definitely glad to see children buckled in but here in the state of Wa. they have just mandated last year that kids have to be in a car seat till they are 9 years old but only if they weigh more than 85 lbs and are over 4 10". I think that there is a car seat company somewhere that is making oodles off this legislation. It's always a fine line. I remember in 1982 when my 1st child was born I don't remember being mandated (it could have been a law but I don't remember) to put him in a car seat. I did it because all my concerned friends,and parents said they're making these great car seats now and it's a much safer way to carry your kids around in a car. Made sense to me so I did it. My point it wasn't the law that made me do it but the love of my child and the encouragement of my support group. As adults I think seat belt laws just make the state rich and I don't like it at all!

New Hampshire is 46th in per capita highway deaths and has no seat belt law for adults. It's unnecessary regulation.

A seat belt saved my ass 20 years ago and I always wear it.

I used to be religious about buckling up until they made it a law telling I have to. "Click it or ticket"? I say "Click it or They Can Stick It"

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03

From "The Politically Incorrect Guide to CAPITALISM" by Robert P. Murphy

The Mixed Blessings of Seat Belt Laws:
Along with airbag legislation, mandatory seat belt laws present a classic case unintended consequences. For one thing, intial studies that demonstrated large benefits of safety belts may have been misleading, because the type of driver who voluntarily wears a safety belt is likely more cautious in general. Most economists believe that driving decisions, just like everything else, are made on the margin. Forcing a driver to wear his belt (or to purchase a car with seat belts in the first place) will cause him to be more reckless than he otherwise would be. While few would deny the benefit of wearing a seat belt in the event of a crash-just ask those test dummies-there very well might be more crashes after such legislation.
Sam Peltzman of the University of Chicago has conducted extensive research showing that seat belt and other auto safety regulations have had precisely this impact. His initial findings were that the number of motorist deaths were roughly unchanged-there were more accidents but fewer deaths per accident-yet the total number of deaths from traffic accidents increased, since pedestrians and bycyclists don't benefit when every driver is forced to wear a seat belt.

Further reading:
http://www.stat.uga.edu/~mmeyer/airbags.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You don't spread FREEDOM at the barrel of a gun." - Ron Paul

yes, I think it is a State issue...

but yes, I also think it should be required for children who are not competent to make their own decision!

I am living right now in a place where there are no seat belt / child seat laws of any kind (or if there are, no one cares because it is never enforced).

I see young children riding in the front seat of cars, standing up by the dashboard, toddlers sitting on driver's laps as they are driving, kids climbing around inside the car & flailing out windows. I keep hearing horror stories from emergency rooms, children decapitated while sitting in the front with an air bag, thrown out of cars during an accident, etc.

So there can be good in *some* regulation, but definitely not by the FEDERAL govt

Many people still do not wear them and it is a moving violation in NJ. Now these same people want to ban smoking in your own car if you have a child in the car!!!!!

Simply put - if they can tell me what to do in my own ca, how far a leap is it to tell me what to think, do and say in my own home?? Fascism is alive and well in the USA!!

but it's safer and I bought the car that had it.

This is Libertarianism 101. Most of the things people think of as gifts bestowed upon them by government would've happened anyway (the seatbelts being in the cars, not the laws making you wear them), it's just that, when there starts to be a demand for something, people ask the government to make it happen before they let the companies know there's a demand. Years of state conditioning...Von Mises...etc.

It's already a state issue. New Hampshire doesn't have seat belt laws for adults.

that's the job of the STATE & LOCAL govts

decide that. It's not the Federal government's job to tell us what is good for us. What has happened with NeoConservatism, is the transition from personal liberties to the forceful insertion, via law, into what is deemed socially moral or correct behavior - among other things. This is a gradual trend toward a more Socialistic society. And Socialism fails.

That is not what the Constitution says. The Federal government has very specific responsibilities. It is the Federal government's job to protect us from our enemies and to protect our civil liberties. All other matters need to be decided on the local level. Only the states themselves know the demographics and concerns of their citizens.

Did that help any? If anyone can expand on this or correct me, please do so.

Ron Paul is totally against the idea of a "Nanny" (federal) government. It's the job of the people to coerce a company, such as an auto manufacturer, to build their cars with seatbelts or they'll buy from another company. I would say, on the other hand, that he would have no problem with the citizens of a given state lobbying their state representatives to enact a law that requires the use of seatbelts on children in their state.

It has been a while since I was in NH but I used to love to go there just so I could cross the state line and read the signs about seat belt laws. It seemed every state in the nation that I went to said "buckle up, it's the law" or something similar. In NH, the sign said "children under 18 must wear a seat belt".

How great is that? If you're over 18, you can decide for yourself whether to wear a seat belt or not.

HYDROMAN
In Texas the seat belt law was forced on the state by the Feds threatening to hold back Fed highway funds unless it was passed.
I believe the great president Nixon ( as in asshole) started the ball rolling with his "revenue sharing concept". That way the Feds can totally destroy the 10th amendment through bribery.

GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!

What Dr. RP means to do, is that the car companies can 'think' for themselves on what's good for the consumers. Also, if laws are needed, it would be up to the state, not the federal.The government don't need to control every little thing about the market.

As for me, I don't need laws to tell me to put my seat belts on. Insurance companies showed enough ads about that. See? Free market. I think.