In article , Ed Huntress says...

People have proposed it. You could make a very good case for it. But that,
too, is part of a democracy. That's where line-drawing comes in. The
consensus is that motocycles are something like four or five times more
likely to kill their riders or put them in the hospital, but the public
doesn't want to kill the fun. What they want to do, in roughly half of the
states, is to keep a risky enterprise from becoming completely nuts.

Excuse me, but where in the constitution does it say that the
government is there to 'keep a risky enterprise from
becoming completely nuts?' And if they do say that, where's
it gonna stop?

I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts. They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================