Saturday, April 14, 2012
Michigan passed a new law yesterday allowing experienced motorcycle riders over the age of 21 to ride without a helmet if they purchase an additional $20K in insurance coverage to offset potential increased healthcare costs.
Michigan just became a more free state.
Now when I wear my helmet, it'll be because of my own choice rather than compliance with a nanny government's oppressive laws.
As an adult, I am fully qualified to make my own choices about the risks I am willing to accept. No government bureaucrat or faceless politician is better qualified to make these decisions for me.
Personal Liberty is essential to a free society. No law should limit liberty unless it can be shown that the law will protect against a direct infringement on the rights of others.
Seatbelt laws are next...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How many hours in the hospital will 20K cover? Why do we need insurance at all? Why do we need laws at all? You seem to want to pick and choose based on some romantic idea of freedom.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand.
DeleteOpposing a law that violates my basic premise of personal liberty does not mean that I oppose all laws.
Anytime you want to make a law inhibiting my personal liberty, the responsibility is YOURS to prove that the law is necessary to protect the liberty and rights of others.
What DIRECT impact does the new law have on the rights of others? If a rider chooses to ride without protection, he or she is the only one directly at risk.
Indirect risks don't count. That slope is too slippery. Using indirect risk as a justification for laws will allow legislators to do virtually anything without limit.
I don't own, and don't care a bit about motorcycles. But Rich is right on. The purpose of laws is to protect people from one another. This is a simple CHOICE. Helmet vs No Helmet. Only the people on the bike are taking the risk, therefore there should be no law enforcing a CHOICE someone else wants to make for you.
ReplyDeletePeople get so wrapped up in telling others how they should act and what they should do. If people would just realize their sphere of influence shouldn't encompass the entire population, then arrogant laws such as this would never be passed.
The same misguided notion about helmet laws could be made about motorcycles in general, as well as automobiles. How much do we outlaw for "safety", especially when that "safety" is an illusion because life is, and always has been, inherently dangerous?
This is very well stated, Don. Completely in my line of thinking.
Delete