Tweet
I would like to quote benjamin franklin starting out:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I would further posit that trading liberty for safety will forever and always do more to sequester the population from liberty than placate the population with safety.
To those of you that think texting will save lives, I say bravo. You appear perfectly capable of pointing out the obvious. Where then is your support for a national speed limit of 0? There is a loose gathering of people for it, get behind and support if you're so inclined for safety.. Too much of a hassle? Herein is the point and the gist behind the idea. If you analyze everything to the n'th possible degree in the search for things that harm you will inevitably find everything, including yourself. I realize it's a LONG way from outlawing texting while driving to outlawing YOU. But think about it in another light. If governments REAL job was to protect the people, albeit from themselves, wouldn't it make more sense to provide low cost and efficient public transportation? Give the people who've had a few too many the OPTION of an economical way home instead of an expensive taxi cab or a slim chance of being caught driving drunk (all while missing the irony of forcing a decision like this from someone who is inebriate). Of course thats a better idea, but it's costs revenue, instead of raises it. I say this texting law, while obviously phrased to placate those quivering from the onslaught of distracted drivers has the stink of revenue generation all over it. And while I am always retiscent to trade my liberty for the safety of someone else, I am loathe to trade my liberty for the stench of taxes loosely wrapped in the idiotic notion that somehow, if we make everything safe, nothing bad will happen to anyone.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I would further posit that trading liberty for safety will forever and always do more to sequester the population from liberty than placate the population with safety.
To those of you that think texting will save lives, I say bravo. You appear perfectly capable of pointing out the obvious. Where then is your support for a national speed limit of 0? There is a loose gathering of people for it, get behind and support if you're so inclined for safety.. Too much of a hassle? Herein is the point and the gist behind the idea. If you analyze everything to the n'th possible degree in the search for things that harm you will inevitably find everything, including yourself. I realize it's a LONG way from outlawing texting while driving to outlawing YOU. But think about it in another light. If governments REAL job was to protect the people, albeit from themselves, wouldn't it make more sense to provide low cost and efficient public transportation? Give the people who've had a few too many the OPTION of an economical way home instead of an expensive taxi cab or a slim chance of being caught driving drunk (all while missing the irony of forcing a decision like this from someone who is inebriate). Of course thats a better idea, but it's costs revenue, instead of raises it. I say this texting law, while obviously phrased to placate those quivering from the onslaught of distracted drivers has the stink of revenue generation all over it. And while I am always retiscent to trade my liberty for the safety of someone else, I am loathe to trade my liberty for the stench of taxes loosely wrapped in the idiotic notion that somehow, if we make everything safe, nothing bad will happen to anyone.
Comment