New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Ticking Time Bomb in Your Dashboard

BRU

Mayor
So explain to me what happens to the drive train linkages in the videos I poste?



couple of points about that video, first one being it simulates an "unbelted" driver.... obviously an airbag would minimize your risk of injury. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you have your seat belt on, the percentage of "lives saved" from airbags drops from 80%(unbelted) to 40%(belted). This is WHY you should wear a seat belt. 2ndly that is a 2004 beetle in your video- a COMPACT car - hitting a solid wall, head on- not your typical collision.

Take these two cars for example, 2 very typical front end collisions - bags blown on both of these and not one bit of damage to the engine or transmission.





The red one needed a core support and some apron work and the other one didn't even get that far. As a matter of fact the driver of the red one was injured by the air bag more than the collision itself.

Now I'm not arguing hitting a brick wall head on at the speed won't cause some mechanical damage, but I am arguing that your typical front end collision with another vehicle, doing 25 mph rarely hurts the engine. That's just a fact and I dispute your claim that 'every' front end collision you've seen required work to the engine. I call bull-shit.
 

degsme

Council Member
couple of points about that video, first one being it simulates an "unbelted" driver.... obviously an airbag would minimize your risk of injury.
That's not the question at hand... the issue is whether or not there would be damage to the engine/drivetrainin a 5G head on collision. Because such damage would cause the value of the car to go well below 50%.

And again, the "typical collision" isn't at issue. What is at issue is a Collision that deploys Airbags. Which is at MINIMuM a 5G collision. Roughly 40m/s/s or about 15mph.

Now I'm not arguing hitting a brick wall head on at the speed won't cause some mechanical damage, but I am arguing that your typical front end collision with another vehicle, doing 25 mph rarely hurts the engine. That's just a fact
For that to be a fact, a headon at 25mph needs to not cause the engine to collapse downwards. And in any car newer than 1990, that simply isn't true at even 15mph headon.
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
I drive a 2001 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab V6 with 218,000 miles on it. Just got it inspected a few days ago. I haven't had a car payment since 2004. Everyday's Christmas with my ride. :)
 

BRU

Mayor
No, the question at hand was your statement "Every front end crash over 10mph in a front end car involves the engine" That is absolutely false. I just showed you two photos of front end crashes moving significantly faster than 10mph and neither involved the engine. Infact the opposite is true, most front end collisions do NOT involve the engine .
 

Judy1

Mayor
I'm saying I'll post what ever I please from whatever source I please on whatever subject or topic I please.

You don't like it?

Sue me.
If you're going to post garbage, LC, just take the criticism that comes with said garbage posting and qwitcher
in! just admit that you blew it.
 

Lapcat

Governor
I'll remind of you of that the next time you make a new thread, which is always the usual leftist bullshit and garbage. And for the record, the only ones b-itching in this thread is you lefties.






If you're going to post garbage, LC, just take the criticism that comes with said garbage posting and qwitcher
in! just admit that you blew it.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
LC, apparently degsme has a CRUSH on ya...........or he's stalking...........either is jacked-up.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I saw the article as more being one that calls for a change to insurance practices, and the lowering of the price of the equipment. The way things are now, you get to eat the price of a safet equipment install in a minor accident, or you have to get rid of an otherwise repairable car because the insurance company has totalled it due to the high cost of the safety equipment.

Certainly there's a benefit to the presence of the equipment -- I don't think anyone is denying that.
 

degsme

Council Member
I saw the article as more being one that calls for a change to insurance practices, and the lowering of the price of the equipment. The way things are now, you get to eat the price of a safet equipment install in a minor accident, or you have to get rid of an otherwise repairable car because the insurance company has totalled it due to the high cost of the safety equipment.

Certainly there's a benefit to the presence of the equipment -- I don't think anyone is denying that.
Oh Lapcat is clearly denying it. As is the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE.

Look if your automatic transmission fails on that same car, or if it is a FWD car and the CV boots get torn in the crash (which they will be at 10mph or higher) the car gets totalled just the same . And nothing prevents you from buying back the car and repairing it. So that line of reasoning just doesn't go anywhere.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Degs -- CV boots that won't stand a 10 mph crash wouldn't survive daily use (they'd take that sort of beating any time you went over railroad tracks).

Frankly, and I'm sure it won't surprise you, I opposed to the law requiring the equipment of such gear -- my safety should be my concern, not yours. My insurer can charge higher rates if they want to cover my higher risk in that regard, or they can offer an incentive (lower rates) for the use of the safety gear.

Nonetheless, if I choose to drive a 1960 Buick and I'm in a 25 mph crash, the car can be fixed and there won't be any air bags to worry about, and it won't be considered totalled as a result. Not true if I'm driving a 1990 Buick. That's a legitimate reason for consumer concern.
 

degsme

Council Member
Degs -- CV boots that won't stand a 10 mph crash wouldn't survive daily use (they'd take that sort of beating any time you went over railroad tracks).
In a front end crash at 10mph or higher, the engine "folds under" the passenger compartment. On a FWD car this will tear the CV Boots.

Frankly, and I'm sure it won't surprise you, I opposed to the law requiring the equipment of such gear -- my safety should be my concern, not yours. My insurer can charge higher rates if they want to cover my higher risk in that regard, or they can offer an incentive (lower rates) for the use of the safety gear.
Except that your failure to get insurance coverage for your healthcare AFFECTS ME through this crash
And you seem to misunderstand how insurance works. It isn't a "Fee for Service" system. It is a "pooled risk" system in which EVERYONE'S RATES go up if even a small handful of actors choose to increase the risk of the pool.

So what you REALLY are demanding is for you to have the right to act irresposibly and to externalize the costs onto the Commons.

Nonetheless, if I choose to drive a 1960 Buick and I'm in a 25 mph crash, the car can be fixed and there won't be any air bags to worry about, and it won't be considered totalled as a result
And the odds of you being so severly injured that I PAY FOR YOUR CARE is more than 50%...

Where do you get the right to impose such a risk ON ME?
 

trapdoor

Governor
In a front end crash at 10mph or higher, the engine "folds under" the passenger compartment. On a FWD car this will tear the CV Boots.
Well, I hit a deer at about 40 mph in a 1985 Honda Civic, and didn't have the problem you describe, so I'll remain somewhat skeptical.

Except that your failure to get insurance coverage for your healthcare AFFECTS ME through this crash
Who said I didn't have healthcare coverage? Who said, for that matter, that any injury I receive wouldn't be covered under the injury portion of my automobile insurance. You're making a host of invalid assumptions when you say that the safety gear put in my car to protect me from the various impacts I might receive is protecting you in any way.

And you seem to misunderstand how insurance works. It isn't a "Fee for Service" system. It is a "pooled risk" system in which EVERYONE'S RATES go up if even a small handful of actors choose to increase the risk of the pool.
I understand that completely -- and it is why insurance is the only product that you can pay for and then be denied when you try to use it (it's much more insidious than tobacco in this regard). But I specified that my insurance rates can be elevated to reflect any additional risk I provide to "the pool," and thus the "pool's" rates (and the insurer's profits) can be protected.

So what you REALLY are demanding is for you to have the right to act irresposibly and to externalize the costs onto the Commons.
I'm really asking that the "commons" isn't what happens to my body in a car I own and which I pay to own/maintain/insure. You wish to find the commons in numerous private matters -- in fact I can think of no activity into which you don't insert the commons. I'm sure that as a liberal you objected, when they were on the books, to sodomy laws because they intruded into people's privat sex lives -- but in a world where AIDS exists and "commons" includes health care, such laws are no more intrusive than the laws you either support or would support if they existed.

Where do you get the right to impose such a risk ON ME?
Where do you derive the right to manage my risk? You do not receive it from participation in "the pool," and my risk is a matter of my individual rights, not a matter of commons (unless, of course, you want to accept sodomy laws and other similar intrusions). You seem to want commons to extend to a lot of places, to want the boundary for individual freedom to be very small compared to the areas in which commons intrudes. I think the commons comes second, and individual rights come first (and usually, but not always, trump the commons if it comes to a dispute between the two).

Make your case -- at the moment you're not being very persuasive.
 

degsme

Council Member
Well, I hit a deer at about 40 mph in a 1985 Honda Civic, and didn't have the problem you describe, so I'll remain somewhat skeptical.
and once again your understanding of physics and modern vehicle design gets in the way.
1) a deer at 40mph mainly hits the legs. the bulk of the deer goes onto the hood and the windscreen. and the cost of that damage I will lay odds was more than $1500
2) a 1985 Honda - although designed somewhat for fold-under front impact was still in the early stages of that. We are talking about cars 10 years newer

Who said I didn't have healthcare coverage?
YOU did. In the healthcare debate. You said you went without coverage.
[quote ]Who said, for that matter, that any injury I receive wouldn't be covered under the injury portion of my automobile insurance.[/quote]
given the description of the accident you gave, even $100k would be eaten up very fast. And most only have $100k of healthcare insurance in automobile collisions
But I specified that my insurance rates can be elevated to reflect any additional risk I provide to "the pool," and thus the "pool's" rates (and the insurer's profits) can be protected.
Except that they aren't. The Pool's rates still go up. Because your elevated rates are simply an actuarial model. The pool is stil paying out.

I'm really asking that the "commons" isn't what happens to my body in a car I own
But the only way that request can be fulfilled is if the rest of us forego de facto more favorable treatment in "The Commons". So you are demanding that ALL OF US expose ourselves to more risk just so that you can save a few pennies. That's hardly an increase in our liberty. YOU Get to exercise a bit more liberty but you COMPELL US to follow your choices.

That's not how a democratic society works.

Where do you derive the right to manage my risk?
By your choice to participate in a democratic society and to use our PUBLIC THoroughfares.

I think the commons comes second, and individual rights come first
Which is to say you think your individual DESIRES come ahead of MY RIGHTS... And that's not how society that seeks to maximize liberty functions.
 

trapdoor

Governor
and once again your understanding of physics and modern vehicle design gets in the way.
1) a deer at 40mph mainly hits the legs. the bulk of the deer goes onto the hood and the windscreen. and the cost of that damage I will lay odds was more than $1500
In the actual event, the deer was "bumped" about 8 feet forward (from the front bumper of the car), and then ran off. Although she didn't appear badly injured, she was unable to jump a four-strand barb-wire fence edging the road. The car received no visible damage (rain-slick two-lane blacktop, the reduced friction probably helped some).

2) a 1985 Honda - although designed somewhat for fold-under front impact was still in the early stages of that. We are talking about cars 10 years newer
Didn't see any "age restriction" in the discussion -- I guess I could point out that a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado is also a front-wheel drive car <grin>.

YOU did. In the healthcare debate. You said you went without coverage.
[quote ]Who said, for that matter, that any injury I receive wouldn't be covered under the injury portion of my automobile insurance.[/
Oh -- but we aren't talking about a collision that didn't happen in my past, we're talking about one that could occur in my future. In that future, I have wonderful health care and sound car insurance as I have today.

given the description of the accident you gave, even $100k would be eaten up very fast. And most only have $100k of healthcare insurance in automobile collisions
The accident I described was a 25 mph collision in a 1960 Buick. I haven't been in that accident, per se, but I was in a collision at roughly that speed in a 1963 Chevy pickup truck. I drove the truck home. Total cost meant the replacement of one tail light on the truck by one unskilled mechanic/electrician (me), roughly $30 1980 dollars. No health care was involved at all.

Except that they aren't. The Pool's rates still go up. Because your elevated rates are simply an actuarial model. The pool is stil paying out.
Nonsense, Degs. I drive a Mustang, and pay higher rates because I drive a "sports" car. Paying higher rates because I choose to drive a car without seat belts or air bags would be no different than this -- the higher rates being based on the higher experience rate shown in the actuarial tables. Insurance companies already make this sort of adjustment all the time -- it would merely be a matter of extending it to this example.

But the only way that request can be fulfilled is if the rest of us forego de facto more favorable treatment in "The Commons". So you are demanding that ALL OF US expose ourselves to more risk just so that you can save a few pennies. That's hardly an increase in our liberty. YOU Get to exercise a bit more liberty but you COMPELL US to follow your choices.

And that is the price you can expect for choosing to live in a society that places a higher value on individual freedom. You compel me to participate in commons in a way not of my own choosing, as you extend commons into areas that are not places of common access, such as my body (access to which is highly restricted -- although lately demand has been somewhat smaller than supply).


Which is to say you think your individual DESIRES come ahead of MY RIGHTS... And that's not how society that seeks to maximize liberty functions.[/
No, it means that my individual freedom and exercise of my rights come ahead of your desire to not be annoyed or suffer the cost that comes with your own exercise of freedom, and your own desire to live in a society that is truly free. I notice you shied away from discussing the sodomy laws and he costs of such individual behavior in a society that has both AIDS and health care insurance. I fail to see a difference between the imposition of such laws on the behavior of consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or wherever), and the imposition of your restrictions on my behavior. In both cases, the exercise of a specific freedom entails an element of risk that could have an impact on society, an impact that is primarily financial and involves insurance costs. Yet you favor one of the impositions and deplore the other -- on what grounds do you make the distinction?
 

degsme

Council Member
Then
a) you didn't hit her at 45mph, you were going at 45mph when you STARTED to slowdown. And you don't really know how fast you were going when you hit
b) you DID hit her only in the legs rather than the body mass So again, you didn't have even a slow speed stationary collision and your putative airbag would not have gone off because you did not decellerate at 5g or more.

So its a bogus example... again. Furthermore since the article spoke of Airbag cars, which only became available on average vehicles from 1989 onwards. SO that inherently puts a backwards age restriction on the vehicles. Furthermore the issue is whether $1500 worth of damage (the cost of repairing the airbag trigger) is 50% of the vehicle value. But that presumes you are carrying Collision/Comprehensive on the vehicle. Which means that unless you are stupid, its newer than 2000.

And as for your pickup truck accident, again, you may have been going 25mph when you slammed on the brakes... collision impact was less than that because otherwise you would not have been in any shape to drive the vehicle home. 5g decelleration is quite severe.

And that is the price you can expect for choosing to live in a society that places a higher value on individual freedom
Feel free to move to Somalia. We've all seen how well that "higher value of individual freedom" works out.

No, it means that my individual freedom and exercise of my rights come ahead of your desire to not be annoyed or suffer the cost that comes with your own exercise of freedom,
Nope. Because nothing forces you to drive a vehicle on PUBLIC ROADS. You want that privilege? You get to abide by the consensus rules.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Then
a) you didn't hit her at 45mph, you were going at 45mph when you STARTED to slowdown. And you don't really know how fast you were going when you hit
b) you DID hit her only in the legs rather than the body mass So again, you didn't have even a slow speed stationary collision and your putative airbag would not have gone off because you did not decellerate at 5g or more.
There wasn't any time to slow down, really. She bounced out in front of me as I rounded a curve that is sort of a blind corner. The right front fender contacted her at about the corner of her body, her left rear hip. Perhaps it's an aytpical example, but that doesn't make it bogus.

SO that inherently puts a backwards age restriction on the vehicles. Furthermore the issue is whether $1500 worth of damage (the cost of repairing the airbag trigger) is 50% of the vehicle value.
Precisely -- and the real answer is "it isn't."


And as for your pickup truck accident, again, you may have been going 25mph when you slammed on the brakes... collision impact was less than that because otherwise you would not have been in any shape to drive the vehicle home. 5g decelleration is quite severe.
I didn't slam on the brakes at all -- I was crossing an intersection and was clipped on the right rear (limited access freeway with a speed limit of 55, usually honored in its violation). While 25 mph is a guessimate on the speed of the car that hit me, it is probably on the low side. My truck half spun and it left me facing the wrong direction on the other side of the intersection. The deceleration, then, involved moving a half-ton pickup truck something like 30 feet. No one was injured. As your example means that anyone involved in that sort of collision would require health care (and the vehicles would be undrivable), I'd have to call you example atypical. Does that mak eit "bogus?"

Feel free to move to Somalia. We've all seen how well that "higher value of individual freedom" works out.
Bullshit. You trot this out any time freedom is mentioned and it was and remains bovine fecies. One can desire a limited government that maximizes individual freedom without expressing a desire for no government at all. If you really feel the restrictions you desire make people more free, I suggest that you make a move to a country that has them. Singapore, perhaps, or maybe China, or the UAE.

Nope. Because nothing forces you to drive a vehicle on PUBLIC ROADS. You want that privilege? You get to abide by the consensus rules
.

You ducked again, Degs. The "public road" isn't the issue. We are discussing something simple here -- the individual practice of a "risky" behavior that then can have an impact on society as a whole, an impact on "commons." If my failure to use safety gear in my car has an impact on commons, as defined strictly by the increased insurance rates to other drivers as you have defined it, then any risky behavior that has such an impact can be restricted by government. Smoking? Outlaw it. Sodomy? Banned. Fatty foods? Scheduled like heroine. If we are merely saying that risky behavior "X" can be restricted because of its impact on insurance rates, we are inserting "commons" into literally every aspect of an individual's life, from sexual behavior to food choice to their choice of passtimes.

That's the road you walk when you say that I must be forced to wear a seat belt because of the risk it imposes to other people's insurance rates. You can effectively double that risk to freedom if society begins to be the source for health insurance, rather than merely the regulator of that industry.
 

degsme

Council Member
Everyone except a race car driver - automatically hits the brakes in that circumstance. And your other accident turns out not to have been at the speed or head on as you described. Neither would have triggered an airbag. Try again.

As for moving to Somalia its not bullshite. Somalia is the quintessential example of what society becomes when it implements the "liberties" you wish to see. I could also pick any one of a number of failed states. In EACH the sort of individual liberties you seek are available. And your attempt at the obverse doesn't work. Because the example you would need to point at perhaps is Canada... except that moving to Canada is an option that is currently an economic step up and their liberties are hardly as constrained as you pretend.

We are discussing something simple here -- the individual practice of a "risky" behavior that then can have an impact on society as a whole, an impact on "commons."
There is nothing "simple" about this at all. And your contention that it is, is precisely the problem. In the USA we have a structure of how such behaviour can and cannot be dealt with.

We cannot just "outlaw it" (though even the Conservative Scalia and Alito have sought to do this in some drugs)
we CAN regulate its commerce

So smoking? Isn't outlawed. but you have no right to impose second hand smoke on anyone
Sodomy - the law banning it has been overturned
Fatty foods? - commerce regulated.
Seat belts? - regulated in PUBLIC VENUES - but you can drive on your own property without one.

And yes, because we understand the consequences of individual acts more comprehensively today than in the past, we recognize more and more that the answer is rarely "simple".

And yes that understanding DOES limit the ability of some individuals to infringe the liberties of others simply through their willingness to use "might makes right".

Yes and?
 

trapdoor

Governor
Everyone except a race car driver - automatically hits the brakes in that circumstance. And your other accident turns out not to have been at the speed or head on as you described. Neither would have triggered an airbag. Try again.
I did not define my accident as head on. Try again yourself. Certainly I hit the brakes, in my collision with the deer and they had little time to slow the car.

As for moving to Somalia its not bullshite. Somalia is the quintessential example of what society becomes when it implements the "liberties" you wish to see.
No, it is not. Probably there is no modern nation that has that notion of liberty. America circa, oh, 1927 probably fits my general idea of the role of government, but I'd stipulate my ideal government lacks the sanctioned racism and sexism of that era. It is possible to desire a government that is less catholic than the one we have today, without desiring a complete breakdown of all social infrastructure as we see in Somalia.

Because the example you would need to point at perhaps is Canada... except that moving to Canada is an option that is currently an economic step up and their liberties are hardly as constrained as you pretend.
Pretend? I make no pretense. Canada puts restrictions on liberty that do not exist in the United States today, and were even less prevalent in the history of the U.S. But Canada has not pursued your restrictions, as yet, to their ultimate end. If Somalia is your example of a "free" society, then I'll stick with my example of one you should enjoy -- such as Singapore, or China (or, since we seem to be able to break the time barrier here, Soviet Russia).

There is nothing "simple" about this at all. And your contention that it is, is precisely the problem. In the USA we have a structure of how such behaviour can and cannot be dealt with.
Not according to you. You say that essentiallly any behavior that could increase the risks in the insurance pool can be barred by government. It makes no legal or philosophical difference if the behavior is a seat belt, or sodomy, or an extra slice of bacon. All can be shown to be "risky" compared to some level of non-risky behavior.

We cannot just "outlaw it" (though even the Conservative Scalia and Alito have sought to do this in some drugs)
we CAN regulate its commerce
Puh-lease. How do you regulate commerce in sodomy, Degs? because this risky behavior would impact insurance rates, and insurance is "commerce" clearly this would be a regulable behavior in Degsland.

As for your bullet list, you write of things as they are today, and that isn't what I was doing. I was following your reasoning "if it impacts the experience pool, it can be regulated."

So smoking? Isn't outlawed. but you have no right to impose second hand smoke on anyone
True today -- but today is by no means permanent. Under the rubic you've constructed there is no reason there couldn't be an outright ban, as the risky behavior would clearly have an impact on insurance rates.
Sodomy - the law banning it has been overturned
Again, true today -- but it was merely one law, (a set of laws per state, to be more accurate) and it was based not on the risks inherent in the behavior, but on a specific set of morals. When elements of risk become the modulator as you say they are, then there's no reason at all that this risky behavior is different from any other. It's a risky behavior that can spread a deadly disease -- why wouldn't, and why couldn't', future regulators step in, in the name of "the pool." Don't look at me, Degs -- it's your argument.

Fatty foods? - commerce regulated.
And yet it isn't commerce, outside the "commons" that we're discussing here. Fatty foods can be sold as a safe substance, because they are safe, in moderation. What you have constructed is an area where the individual's behavior -- the excess consumption of fatty foods -- could be regulated based on its impact on "the pool." You thereby extend the concept of commons into behaviors that have traditionally been private and individual in nature, and yet you fail to acknowledge this is what you're doing.

Seat belts? - regulated in PUBLIC VENUES - but you can drive on your own property without one.
The issue is not whether it is in a public venue. The issue is the regulation of an individual behavior in the name of "the pool." You think this regulation is OK, even though the only impact it has on "the pool" is the acknowledged impact on the cost of insurance -- but almost any risk can be shown to arrive at a measurable insurance impact. It wouldn't matter to the insurance company if the car was being driven on a public road or not.

And yes, because we understand the consequences of individual acts more comprehensively today than in the past, we recognize more and more that the answer is rarely "simple".
And so, according to you, we have no individual freedom.
 

degsme

Council Member
The top post issue is an accident that would trigger an airbag. You offered two accidents that you failed to completely describe, as contributing to the discussion. Now that I have pushed you on it it turns out that no.. these would not trigger airbags and hence your annecdotes are irrelevant

Furhtermore the plural of annecdote is not Data.

As for moving to Somalia its not bullshite. Somalia is the quintessential example of what society becomes when it implements the "liberties" you wish to see.
No, it is not. Probably there is no modern nation that has that notion of liberty. America circa, oh, 1927 probably fits my general idea of the role of government,
Ah..
Defacto Slavery - Somalia has that
Crony Capitalism - Somalia has that
High income and wealth Disparity - Somalia has that
Primarily agrarian economy - Somalia has that
Poltics done in the Tammany Hall back room - Somalia has that
Women as second class citizens - Somalia has that

You are correct that no MODERN nation has that... But few would argue that Somalia is a modern nation in its current structure.

Again by invoking 1927 - when white male Affirmative action was at full height and individual liberties for all others were sacrificed to support this - you demonstrate the accuracy of my Somalia suggestion.

Not according to you. You say that essentiallly any behavior that could increase the risks in the insurance pool can be barred by government. It makes no legal or philosophical difference if the behavior is a seat belt, or sodomy, or an extra slice of bacon.
And once again you make this assertion and you fail to support it with FACTUAL LOGIC. I and others have shown to you over and over again how the limits are THE OTHER EXPLICIT LIMITS in The Constitution. That's what makes it complicated.

You simply ignore this and pretend the other parts of the Constitution do not exist.... fACTS MATTER TRAP.
 

trapdoor

Governor
The top post issue is an accident that would trigger an airbag. You offered two accidents that you failed to completely describe, as contributing to the discussion. Now that I have pushed you on it it turns out that no.. these would not trigger airbags and hence your annecdotes are irrelevant
The impact with the deer would undoubtedly have triggered an airbag had the car been so equipped. My incident with the truck was providing an example of what would happen in a vehicle NOT so equipped. Today, many cars have side-impact airbags that might have been triggered by the sort of rear-quarter collision I had when my 1963 Chevy truck was clipped by a 1970 Chevy Impala 30 years ago. We're both dealing with merely events that could happen, and so I provided a couple of real-world examples. In the case of the 1985 Honda I was driving when I hit the deer, it was to counter your rather mechanically inept idea that a 10 mph impact would ruin a car's CV boots -- something at is ludicrous as those boots are part of the suspension and deal with more impact than that every day. You then set an arbitrary time limit that this would only happen on a vehicle newer than a 1985 Honda Civic -- your original statement was merely "front wheel drive car" with no date stated or implied.

Furhtermore the plural of annecdote is not Data.
With enough anecdotes, it definitely is, but that is definitely beside the point.

Ah..
Defacto Slavery - Somalia has that
Crony Capitalism - Somalia has that
High income and wealth Disparity - Somalia has that
Primarily agrarian economy - Somalia has that
Poltics done in the Tammany Hall back room - Somalia has that
Women as second class citizens - Somalia has that
Actually, Somalia doesn't have some of these things -- it lacks the stable society that would be required for either crony capitalism or Tammany Hall-style politices to work. I'm not certain why a primarily agrarian economy is a bad thing, but by 1927 we were starting the move away from that in this country, and I specified that my ideal government would lack the institutionalized racism and sexism of the era (so naturally you ignored that statement in the name of smearing my argument with those qualities).

Again by invoking 1927 - when white male Affirmative action was at full height and individual liberties for all others were sacrificed to support this - you demonstrate the accuracy of my Somalia suggestion.
And again I specifically excluded institutionalized racism from my goal for a limited government. We can have a government that obeys its own limits as defined in the Constitution without institutionalized racism and sexism. Like it or not, both racism and sexism are social constructs. They were once also features of our government. They shouldn't have been, and they have been removed -- from government. They have not and cannot be removed from society, no matter how much social experimentation is used to expand government into that arena.


And once again you make this assertion and you fail to support it with FACTUAL LOGIC. I and others have shown to you over and over again how the limits are THE OTHER EXPLICIT LIMITS in The Constitution. That's what makes it complicated.
I provided the factual logic, and you've failed to respond to it. Your argument in favor of seat belts/air bats is that they are required as a limit on risky behavior that impacts the costs of "the pool." I provided numerous other risky behaviors -- sodomy, excessive eating of fatty foods, smoking, et alia, that also are risky to "the pool," and I ask again why they can't be limited in the same way. It isn't because of the limits on government, based on your own logic, because government can impose itself on anything that represents a risk to the pool.

You simply ignore this and pretend the other parts of the Constitution do not exist.... fACTS MATTER TRAP.
The real response to this should probably be "why not? you do it." The fact in the case is bound by your statements, not mine. Under YOUR logic, if it is risky to the pool, it can be regulated. You've said this about firearms, seat belts and a couple of other "risky" behaviors. I'm merely extending your argument to other cases. I am logically consistent in my own argument -- it isn't the pool's business if I wear a seat belt, or not. It isn't the pool's business if I eat bacon at every meal and finish up with a cigarette. It isn't the pool's business if I have unprotected anal sex with a different partner every night. The pool does not get to manage my risk in these individual and private behaviors. It is only using your logic that it would have any right to do so.
 
Top