Who stole the peoples' brains?
My choice would be the Great and General Court, whose latest contribution to Massachusetts' motor vehicle laws is the motto "We don' need no steenkin seatbelts!"
The debate over primary seatbelt laws takes one into an Alice's Wonderland of libertarian double-think. Here we have a device whose lifesaving qualities are demonstrated by a mountain of hard evidence. Two out of three people agree that it saves lives, but don't you dare make me! After all, two of those eight fatalities over the July 4 weekend were wearing their seatbelts, so there!
Certain unnamed Beacon Hill lobbies must be relieved in the aftermath of this bloody weekend, because all the dead were under 30, so therefore we don't need any legislation to keep geriatric leadfoots (or is that leadfeet?) off the roads, right?
Being of a certain age, I won't enjoy giving up my licence if I live so long, but if no one in my family has the spine to tell me I should stop driving, then I want a Commonwealth and a Registry who will tell me before I mistake a laundromat for a parking space, then die with someone's needless death on my conscience.
Likewise, having long since made seat belts a productive habit, I have no ethical objection whatever to laws that tell me to do what I already do. I don't murder people, but I don't object to laws against doing so, or see them as an infringement of my rights. That's partly because I do grasp and support pinko concepts like "commonwealth" and "general welfare."
Seems to me that we need a primary seatbelt law as a backup, just like homicide laws. The collateral benefit of a primary seatbelt law is that if you are too confused, too drunk or too stoned to fasten your seatbelt, it may just be possible that you're in no condition to drive, whether you are 18 or 88. We don't even need a built-in car breathalyser: Are you coordinated enough to fasten the damn buckle?
Long before I reached my creaking years, I understood that people don't become stupid just because they become old, nor do they automatically become wise by becoming old. It's just that the odds favour the survival of smarter youth into old age. Stupid young people--those who manage to survive their reproductive years despite their stupidity--become stupid old people. Or legislators, or lobbyists.
The debate over primary seatbelt laws takes one into an Alice's Wonderland of libertarian double-think. Here we have a device whose lifesaving qualities are demonstrated by a mountain of hard evidence. Two out of three people agree that it saves lives, but don't you dare make me! After all, two of those eight fatalities over the July 4 weekend were wearing their seatbelts, so there!
Certain unnamed Beacon Hill lobbies must be relieved in the aftermath of this bloody weekend, because all the dead were under 30, so therefore we don't need any legislation to keep geriatric leadfoots (or is that leadfeet?) off the roads, right?
Being of a certain age, I won't enjoy giving up my licence if I live so long, but if no one in my family has the spine to tell me I should stop driving, then I want a Commonwealth and a Registry who will tell me before I mistake a laundromat for a parking space, then die with someone's needless death on my conscience.
Likewise, having long since made seat belts a productive habit, I have no ethical objection whatever to laws that tell me to do what I already do. I don't murder people, but I don't object to laws against doing so, or see them as an infringement of my rights. That's partly because I do grasp and support pinko concepts like "commonwealth" and "general welfare."
Seems to me that we need a primary seatbelt law as a backup, just like homicide laws. The collateral benefit of a primary seatbelt law is that if you are too confused, too drunk or too stoned to fasten your seatbelt, it may just be possible that you're in no condition to drive, whether you are 18 or 88. We don't even need a built-in car breathalyser: Are you coordinated enough to fasten the damn buckle?
Long before I reached my creaking years, I understood that people don't become stupid just because they become old, nor do they automatically become wise by becoming old. It's just that the odds favour the survival of smarter youth into old age. Stupid young people--those who manage to survive their reproductive years despite their stupidity--become stupid old people. Or legislators, or lobbyists.
posted by Uncle | 00:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home