"but seatlbelts keep the driver behind the wheel and in better copntrol of their car, therbye protecting the lives of others."

Can you explain this more?

Do you mean that they are kept behind the wheel as in they are not projected out of the car during an accident?

+1 Draug...I see you've risen from your ghostly, zombified state...

Hey--he rose again!

Draug=Jesus, clearly!

Yeah, it's bizzare to say this but Ron Paul consistently fails to recognize that people are responsible to one another, for collective welfare and safety, not just responsible to themselves. Now naturally there is some disagreement about where those lines are drawn and what and how much we are all responsible to one another, but Ron Paul just completely misses the concept altogether. Perhaps unsurprising from a man who named his son after Ayn Rand.

I really like what I've seen of Ron Paul so far. Yes he has his wacko moments, but really when compared to the general wackoness of the traditional modern republican candidate, he's by far the best they have to offer.

@Tom - The forces of a car in a spin can cause the driver to be tossed about the interior. Have you ever ridden in an old early 70s bench vinyl seat sedan or wagon without a seat belt and taken a sharp turn? The car will do the turn but you'll go sliding across the bench. Now, if you are the driver and slide into the passenger's seat, how are you going to attempt to correct or at least direct the car from htting that school bus load of children?

I totalled a Jeep Grand Cherokee about 4 years ago. I cam over a hill in a snow storm to find a car stopped in the middle of the road. With no where to go, I took the Jeep off road and, because I was locked into my seat, I was able to at least steer the car through a fence into a field and avoid several trees that would have killed me, seatbelt and airbags or no.

Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets aren't just about the individual who is wearing them. Being held behind the wheel allows you to continually alter the trajecgtory of your vehicle and possibly recover from a spin where you would be thrown about the cabin of the car without them and helmets protect from airborne projectiles that would take you out and turn your motorcycle into a deadly projectile of it's own.

Makes sense to me, I suppose. Though I do hate it when the gov't gets involved.

"Yes he has his wacko moments, but really when compared to the general wackoness of the traditional modern republican candidate, he's by far the best they have to offer."

If the best the "wackoness" of the GOP is an antiquated Jeffersonian wacko...

I am neither swayed nor impressed.

They should only get involved when the actions endanger others. Other's rights (especially to life) outweigh individual liberties.

but Draug once you start down the road to not letting other's die by your inaction (like not wearing a seatbelt), doesn't that lead to socialism (like not contributing to a welfare program out of your earnings)???

i'm mean, i'm all on board, i just don't see where you draw the line.

'the actions endanger others' - yep, The action of not supporting social welfare programs, or not wearing a seatbelt, all endanger others.

That's a slippery slope argument. The argument that once you do one thing, it becomes completely impossible to ever draw a line anywhere.
Not that I'm opposed to "socialism" *sigh* (whether or not a strong welfare state actually constitutes socialism is an argument for another time) but that form of argument is a logical fallacy.

To be clear (and I'm not a support of Ron Paul) his believe isn't that there should be no seatbelt laws, his believe (and he's right) is there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to make a law about seatbelts. If you want the government to make a law about seatbelts, then the US Constitution should be amended to give the federal government more authority. But that is also the case for 85% of what the federal government does now...

obiwan I hear you, but still, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate I have heard since I was old enough to vote who has repeatedly convinced me that he may be a good candidate for president.

Pro choice, pro gay rights, fiscally conservative for more than the benefit of the rich? I can really respect that, and every time i hear him debate he is the standout among the idiots he competes with. He's the most 'real' candidate I've ever seen, on BOTH sides of the isle. And I'm LEFT of center!

Dudes dont let that seatbelt bullshit distract you, thats just a ploy by Faux news to keep you from contemplating what the candidate REALLY has to offer. Yes, the seatbelt thing SOUNDS retarded, but it's just the extreme case of his "government stay the hell out of everything" platform.

"Pro choice, pro gay rights, fiscally conservative for more than the benefit of the rich?" - Uhhhhhhhhhh... yeah, not so much really. He's opposed to all those things, he just says he wouldn't act on them if he were elected. He is no pro gay rights. He is not pro choice. And a "government stay the hell out of everything" platform is a terrible idea. You can't say "Oh the practical implications of the idea are completely ludicrous, but the underlying idea is sound" in politics. You have to actually consider what will really happen to people if you implement an abstract idea like that.

@YJ - This was on Jay Leno and striaght from his mouth. I have it on DVR because Chris Cornell was supposed to perform tonight but they ran out of time.

@kanosha - You and he are wrong. Saying the feds have no right to make a law to protect the innocent is wrong. Seatbelt laws aren't about protecting the wearer. They are about protecting innocent victims who have no say in the other person's wearing of the seatbelt. Supporting the general welfare gives them the authority to make laws that protect others from an abuse of the freedoms granted to the individual. If anything, while I disagree with Obamacare, that would be the one argument they could make to support the insurance requirement is that it supports the general welfare of the people as provided int eh preamble.

'He is no pro gay rights. He is not pro choice.'

Fair enough. But he still wont act on them, which puts him a hell of a lot above the rest of the Republican pack as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what his personal convictions are, I care what his voting record is, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it is both socially and fiscally conservative.

'You can't say, Oh the practical implications of the idea are completely ludicrous, but the underlying idea is sound.'

You are right, of course. I've always had a hard time arguing against libertarian viewpoints though.

'Supporting the general welfare gives them the authority to make laws that protect others from an abuse of the freedoms granted to the individual.'

Right. That's where the extreme libertarian viewpoint breaks down. Most people believe government needs the power to save us from ourselves sometimes. Libertarians believe in the right of the common man to self-destruct.

Libertarianism is the ideology of spoiled children.

was about to bring up the founding fathers but they were all spoiled children as well

@Draug, the constitution is a document with explicit powers for congress, not implicit. Section 8 specifically states what congress can do. The 10th amendment ensures that anything else is reserved for the states.

You have the right to spontaneously self-destruct, unless that right takes me out of the game of life without my consent. Likewise, I have the right to self-destruct unless I take someone else out with me.

OK, so the states can make the seatbelt laws. I'm good with that. But his implication on Lenoi tonight was that *governement* at *any* level should not have the right to tell you "what you can and can't doi with your body". So by that statement, I should be allowed to strap a shit load of C4 to myself, walk into a daycare full of kids, and blow it the fuck up. There should be no law against it.

'the constitution is a document with explicit powers for congress'

Isn't that a point of some contention, kanosha? I mean in no real way does our current government system function in this manner, does it? I don't see any constitutional provision for a LOT of shit the federal government does. Forgive my ignorance though if I'm missing the point.

wait you are saying seatbelts keep drivers behind the wheel? In what way> in what situation would a driver retain control when he has a seat belt on?

@Santa - Yes they were. Every one of the founding fathers came from money and power. They were landowners because, early on, only landowners had the right to vote. If you were a sharecropper, you had no voting rights. So yes, the founding fathers were all spoiled rich kids.

@Santa - Please read my post again. I laid it out and don't feel like copying and pasting it because one person seems incapable of following a simple logical train of thought.

The fathers were hardly libertarians.

Yellowjacket, it isn't really a point of contention. The 10th amendment clearly states it:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I completely agree with you (and stated in my first post) that most of what the government does is technically unconstitutional; it doesn't mean it's right or that we should ignore the constitution because other politicians in the past have. I agree with many of the laws on the books (seatbelt laws to bring it back to the original topic), but it doesn't mean it is constitutional. If you want an activist government, I have no problem with that, just amend the constitution to explicitly give the government more authority than was originally intended.