Thread: [Discussion] Government Control
View Single Post
  #12    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:04 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
Think broader on the helmet issue. Five year old kid going for a ride. Is he really buying the bike or the helmet? No. His parents buy the helmet. His parents tell him to put on the helmet. It's their responsibility. But, some parents are bad parents and won't have the kid wear a helmet. So, the kid suffers.

Same with seat belts. Is the kid going to do it for themselves? No. And even if you were the only one in the car, and by extension the only one injured or dead. There are a number of outcomes to that that don't just involve that single individual. Entire family structures are upended. Emotional damage for others. Economic challenges if the bread winner of the family dies. So, it affects other people.

To think either action only affects the one individual is an incredibly selfish and self-centred way of looking at it. Other people are hurt. I have no problem with safety regulations and standards to prevent people from unnecessarily being injured or dying. Like hard hats on construction sites. It isn't something that can avoided 100% of course, nor perhaps should it. But, if you can make things safer. Why not? That's why we have drivers licenses. If it's in your own house and there's no way someone could police that, then yeah don't bother. And wouldn't be the government's responsibility anyway. But out in public? Sure, protect people.

As for the wages. Employers can set whatever wages they want. I'd support the idea of mandatory cost of living increases, but I don't see that happening. But even then, the wage is what the employer set.... just updated. If you're talking about minimum wage... sure? It's just a couple of bucks. Otherwise you'd just get a couple of cents. Neither is livable, and minimum wage shouldn't really be livable as you want to encourage moving up the ladder and beyond that. But, if you get a couple dollars out of it instead of cents, there's a least a reason for someone to actually want that job.
Even if helmets were a requirement... that wouldn't ensure parents teach their kids to use them. It would only go to anger the people who have no such interest in wearing a helmet. The kid should know to wear a helmet, even if his parents don't tell him to. It says it in the manual, on the bike... It says it all sorts of different places. Places that people are SUPPOSED to read, even if they don't... Yeah, most five year olds probably don't have too great of reading skills. But then again... most bikes made for 5 year olds aren't dangerous. And just because some people fail to do something does not mean everyone should be forced to. By such logic... we should make it the law to drink water. Because you need to keep hydrated. And not EVERY parent tells their kid that... You ask why not make things safer? No one says you can't. YOU can make things as safe as YOU want. FOR YOU. But I would, even if it is completely stupid of me, like to remain unsafe if it meant keeping my liberty intact.

The emotional effects are not taken into consideration. That is just as much as accountable for the people experiencing them as it is for the event that caused them. It isn't anymore a crime because you made someone "feel bad." The economic situation of the family MIGHT be a selling point. But I mean... what if the "bread winner" decides to leave the family? The same financia issues would arise, and I doubt you would want a law requiring couples to stick together. Sure, they might be able to get child support.. but they could also get life insurance to cover the financial loss when s/he dies. And if they can't afford life insurance... I really don't think that any form of child support received would be viable as a financial solution. The driver license thing falls short to me.. because how you drive effects other people. But saying that a seat belt would is like saying that you're a more reckless driver because you are wearing a red shirt instead of a blue one.

And I'm sorry... but if the kid isn't going to do what's safe for him... that is still his own choice. Obviously the seat belts are there for a reason.. They aren't just some fancy decor.

I was talking about minimum wage, yeah. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing(I agree with it completely) but I mean... the idea that jobs would be reduced to working for pennies is simply asinine. People wouldn't work a job worth so little. That means, that in order to get employees, the employers would have to offer an attractive rate of pay. And that would have to be one that is at least viable for basic survival of human beings. They have to pay like 8 bucks on a person. But if they instead could pay 4, that means that they could hire two people. That means two families are getting income, not just one. Not that it would necessarily work that way, but it could. Just as the examples you provided COULD happen that way. (Yeah right. This isn't what I think though, so it's okay. Just trying to generate convo)

And at Toujours: That would be a nice law. From what I understood... that was kind of the situation with helmets. I've always been told that you had to. And that in some places the age to be "helmetless" was 16 or 18.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 19th, 2012 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote