Ok...Ill accept the facetious part, but as I asked, does that mean you think that those other laws are infringements of your freedom? And if so, which ones?
Having to spend money on airbags, seat belts, proper tires, brakes, bumpers? Which are responsible laws and which tremble greatly on your false sense of freedom to choose?
As a follow up question, does the relativity of your objection not become incredibly obvious?
Sometimes, because you can make a law, it means you absolutely should.
Being against laws, just because they are laws is just an utterly ridiculous stance.
In a very real way, it is laws that give you most of your freedom.
Irony is just a big bad bitch that way.
i'm not saying that laws which limit your freedom are inherently bad (although i think the vast majority of them are)
but yeah, restrictions on car manufacturers are freedom-limiting because they only affect the customer
on the other hand, drunk driving laws (for example) ensure public safety and therefore ensure freedom rather than limiting it
so no, i'm not against laws just because they're laws... that would make me an anarchist.
you like misrepresenting my position for some reason. do you read my posts?
Im not actually representing your position as anything....Im directly asking you what it is, and you avoided answering quite a few of them.
I do make some statements, but they are not directed at you, unless you are guilty of them.
You, like many others, when asked which laws are wrong, simply answer that many are wrong, but when dealing with the specifics and actual details tend to shy away.
So, should antilock brakes not be standard?
Should seatbelts not be standard?
Should bumpers not be standard?
Should emission standards not be set?
Should directionals be optional?
Should any vehicle in any shape be ok to drive?
There are thousands of safety precautions on vehicles, because car accidents are one of the leading causes of death for Americans.
I have seen many of these safety improvements become standard in the 28 years Ive been driving, and while many were cutting edge and controversial to varying degrees when implemented, now they are so common, and obviously necessary that any reasonable person would be silly to argue they are not necessary.
Now, if you want to go drive some substandard vehicle on your private ranch and take the risk of killing yourself, that is freedom, and in most cases it should not be infringed, but when using public roads that affect society at large, as a group and individually, you absolutely should have to follow those safety rules.
While you consider it your right to drive around like a jackass without a helmet or a seat belt, you in a very real way do affect me, because I bear that risk as well, if we get into an accident, which do happen. If I make one mistake, and you arent wearing your seat belt, or a helmet, you may be geometrically more harmed than if you followed some basic, obvious safety precautions, and therefore, very much infringe on my freedom. I am financially responsible for your stupidity in this case, and relatively speaking, only because, at the current moment, you consider some safety features to be unnecessary, that eventually, will be the norm.
Further, as far as a freedom stripping law goes, wearing a seat belt or a helmet, is so non-constricting as to suggest any complaint about it, is from an irrational narcissist.