Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800875@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 22:19:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800875
Posted: Fri Jan  3 22:19:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 20:46:47 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:frog:-29400:inmet:7800875:000:1373
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan  3 22:19:00 1986


There's been some implication that libertarians and others who oppose
the seat belt laws on grounds of personal freedom are, by opposing
this law, somehow suggesting that people should not wear seat belts.

How many times must these folks be told?  Here's Frederic Bastiat
from his essay "The Law", written in 1850:

	Socialism, like the ancient political ideology from which it
	emanates, confuses government with society.  That is why,
	every time that we do not want a thing to be done by the
	government, the socialists conclude that we do not want that
	thing to be done at all.  We are opposed to state education;
	hence, we are opposed to all education.  We object to a state
	religion; hence, we do not want any religion at all.  We are
	against an equality imposed by the state; hence, we are
	opposed to equality; etc., etc.  It is as if they accused us
	of not wanting men to eat, because we oppose the cultivation
	of grain by the state.
	
Let me forestall a few objections:  First, I am not calling anyone
a socialist -- Bastiat was  answering the pre-Marx socialists of his
day (different from the socialists  of our day) and in
the process made clear an important distinction.  Second, I do not
now accuse any specific person of the confusion between government
and society (though it's certainly been a fruitful source of confusion
on the net in the past).