Boortz {Hearts} the Nanny State

Shorter Boortz: Boortz:

If you don’t make it illegal for people to make dumb suicidal choices, their blood is on your hands.

P.S. I like mandatory seatbelt laws and I think that they are consistent with an enlightened freedom-loving system. After all, as Boortz points out, they are public roads (the public monopoly on roadways does little to reduce the force of that argument to my mind), and of course more fatalities means a higher insurance bill even for those of us who do strap in. But “blood on his hands”? Really? Even when Boortz embraces statism he’s so over the top as to be hilarious.

P.P.S. Should I just combine the “Boortz” and “Humor” categories?

6 comments to Boortz {Hearts} the Nanny State

  • RW

    It’s not a “nanny state” proposal and speaking as a libertarian on these issues, he’s right on the money. If you want to drive your car w/o seat belts on your own property, go right ahead. If you want to ride your motorcycle w/o a helmet on your farm, fine by me. Having laws for speed limits & using safety as the precursor (gas usage a bit, but it’s mainly safety) but not having seat-belt laws or helmet laws on those same gov’t roadways belies consistency (and common sense).

    The “blood on his hands” thing is run-of-the-mill radio political fare. His job is to attract listeners and I’m sure the phone calls will flow in.

    BTW, the originator of the truck exemption was former speaker Tom Murphy, who was to Georgia corruption what the city of Chicago is to the USA.

  • Who’m I supposed to believe about what’s nanny state? You or CATO? ;) (That’s a big old smiley winky).

    I like the way this guy puts it…

    Nanny-State Nazis in South Dakota want to force everyone to buckle up at the point of a Gun

    That’s just awesome.. & btw Boortz is on record against motorcycle helmet laws.

    The “blood on his hands” thing is run-of-the-mill radio political fare. His job is to attract listeners and I’m sure the phone calls will flow in.

    I’m glad my job isn’t to attract listeners. I’ll be happy with my 100 hits/day.

  • Wow. Against motorcycle helment laws but for mandatory seat belt laws? Are you sure?

    I remember hearing Boortz say that when you drive on the public highways you forfeit your 4th amendment rights. And this was years before the war on terror.

    So I am like you. I have no idea what a Libertarian or a libertarian is anymore.

  • And for what it is worth I drive a truck but I buckle up and anybody who rides with me buckles up.

    Second hand smoke might kill ‘em but they ain’t gonna go through the windshield if I can help it

  • Boortz on helmets

    Now … before you start in with these “you’re no Libertarian” emails … let me say that I am against helmet laws, though I think you are an idiot to ride without one. But .. there must be one provision. The law should state that your riding without a helmet constitutes an implied consent for the state to seize every penny of your assets; you money, your home and the rest of your belongings, to be sold to compensate the state’s taxpayers for any money spent on patching up your empty head after you come off your bike.

    By the way .. loud bikes don’t save lives, they piss people off.

  • RW

    Yeah, I know his stance on helmets, which is the typical big-L libertarian stance: stand on the outside proposing something that is a virtual nirvana to all but would never in a thousand years even be considered by lawmakers, so you’re able to keep on bitching and complaining about each and every politician because you never have “skin in the game”. Good for his type of job, as he never has to defend anything or lead & instead gets to always complain about those in power (Team Obama and a few million people who suffered from BDS are starting to realize that it’s easier to bitch & be responsible for nothing) but expecting the state to enact a law that covers his sort of “perfect plan” for those who don’t like helmets is, well, unrealistic.

    Of course, the pure free-market solution would be for insurance companies & not the government to be over that sort of thing. If you want an insurance policy for your Harley & you don’t want to wear a helmet, then they can charge you a LOT more in premiums than they do those who wear helmets; you know, like they charge more (rightly) for smokers versus non-smokers. The only way the state should be involved is if they check your insurance during a stop & you’re supposed to be wearing a helmet, they issue a ticket & notify your insurance company who gives you a huge penalty on top of jacking up your premiums above what they’d be if you hadn’t lied (and notifies every other insurance company).

    As is usually, but not always, the case; the market works best.

    Besides, if the “people” really wanted helmet laws changed, they can elect officials who’ll overturn them. That’s the way our system works.

    BTW, a lot of things scream “idiot”. Refusing to wear a seat belt is one of them.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>