Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site uiucuxc
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!verdeyen
From: verdeyen@uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Seatbelts for passengers (micro
Message-ID: <100700001@uiucuxc>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 13:05:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.100700001
Posted: Sun Aug 25 13:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 02:00:59 EDT
References: <160@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:-16000:uiucuxc:100700001:000:1902
Nf-From: uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA!verdeyen    Aug 25 12:05:00 1985


Your point of view is interesting.  I have never considered it from that
viewpoint.  I have one problem with your argument, if it really mattered 
to a person what other people thought of him, then that is his fault, and
it is not government's responsibility to relieve him of that syndrome.
For if government takes that responsibility, we could all be wearing uniforms
in a few years.   Clothing certainly reflects a person's personality, and
someone might be afraid people would consider him "wimpy" if he wore the wrong
color of shoes.
   My biggest problem, however, with the seatbelt law is the reason why it
was passed.  Here, in Illinois, there were no significant groups lobbying for
the law with public safety in mind.  The main lobby groups were affiliated
with car maufacturers whose sole interest was economic.  (If enough states
pass such seatbelt laws, auto makers won't have to install airbags in their
new line of cars; a costly operation.)  So my gripe is this: who exactly is
the government?  In regard to the seatbelt law, the people of Illinois sure
weren't.  One of the 'representatives' was quoted as saying, 'I've had a lot
of negative response to the proposed law, but I'm not going to let that change
my mind'... and she is "representing" her constituents???????   
   At any rate, the precedent has been set in Illinois.  Big business has 
stepped into government to protect its economic interest.  That isn't a
democracy, that's a corporation.  If big business is allowed to step in
the legislative process on a whim, what's next?  A law that requires 
participation in a physical fitness program would benefit those in that
industry, and it sure would make America healthy.  So the next time the 
governor signs a bill, and passes it off on the pretense that he's doing
it for the good of the public, you can bet it won't be a ban on alcohol or
tobacco.
			  Mike Verdeyen