@BillRM,
Quote:There is not in fact a logical end point with the kind of logic and thinking you are trying to promote to the point the state would control every aspect of it citizens lives.
Wow... I point out that your statement is untrue and you somehow think I have promoted something I never said.
I merely said your statement was not true when you said there was no risk to anyone but the non wearer of a seatbelt. That does NOT mean I promoted the government can and should do something about it. It was merely pointing out that the support for your position was based on a false premise.
Quote:There is not in fact a logical end point with the kind of logic
Of course there is no endpoint of you insist on using a slippery slope argument at the same time you argue against a strawman. But that doesn't make your argument logical nor does it refute anything I've actually said.
As I said, the state needs to balance individual vs societal rights. That means the state isn't moving to the endpoint you claim. It does mean that society bears some costs in some if not most of the individual rights it allows. At what point does the societal cost trump the individual right is the question that needs to be addressed. Arguing that there is no societal cost is as silly as arguing there is no individual right.
