The Pet Peeve

[SpaceCadet]

(07-04-2011 08:54 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  Helmet laws being a stepping stone to Orwells 1984 concerns me about as much as receiving a speeding ticket.

and

(07-04-2011 08:44 PM)2Beers Wrote:  Ok I'll chime in....If you do so choose to not wear helmet or gear that is your right/choice, BUT if you should crash either by your fault or not then suffer the outcome with out getting a pity party from the public.

... or flowers on your grave from your loved ones that could have been spared this moment by one, simple thing. Point taken though Beers.

Folks, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Not a whole lot that I feel that I am extremely qualified to speak out against - but rolling the dice with your life whilst yalping the battle cry: "CAUSE BIG BROTHER DON'T CONTROL MEEEEEE!!", to my eyes, simply makes riders look ignorant and foolhardy - not cool and "free".
I love my girls and my wife far too much to take a chance with such an act of sheer ignorance on my behalf.

This whole conversation - jarringly off-topic in any case - started with someone ascribing to helmetless riders the motive of "trying to look cool" or somesuch.

I've simply stated that a.) that's likely a simplistic and erroneous assumption, b.) in a free - or even semi-free - society, people have among many other rights the right to take risks, even stupid ones, so long as such activity does not violate the similar rights of others, and that c.) the mess that governments have made of medical industries in N. America and elsewhere is the violator of people's property rights via taxation, not the risks taken by others.

With all due respect, I think each of those points has been pretty much ignored here in favor of emotional reaction to the foolishness of riding helmetless - which, as I've said, is not something I'm supporting here (I haven't ridden a motorcycle since I was roughly 12.) But I think I've stated the case pretty clearly and, as some guys a long time ago said by way of quoting Asimov, "The truth is written all along the page..."

Sneering at valid concerns about the intrusion of government into ever more personal areas of human activity is, I think, far more deadly than any traffic accident. I'll leave it with another fave quote of mine, from Mises' "Human Action," pg 733 or thereabouts, some points to ponder in this context:


"If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject's conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone...

But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs...

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away."

.