I think we had thid discussion a few weeks ago and a key question is still how much the individual choice not to wear a helmet infringes on others rights. For example the rights of a patient who wants to undergo surgery but gets postponed because an emergency surgery has to be done on a helmless biker. The ambulance team who prefers to treat some broken bones over scrapping brains from the road. In the case of an accident you use public resources.
The question is also how much it differs from sports accidents. People who go skiing, mountain climbing, etc: no protection is required there. We pay for accidents of those individuals too. And hands on the heart: who of us never hurt himself by doing something stupid and was happy that we were taken care of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonverba
and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.
so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.
|
The idea of the social contract is a theory, not a law set in stone. To me personally the concept of individual freedom trumps other laws.
Coming from Germany might have something to do with the fact that I have "Alaaaarm" ringing through my inner submarine when a entity wants to step on my freedom for the greater good.
Coming to separation of power: some years ago the number of laws which Germany passed and which originate from the EU was about 40%, today's numbers are probably even higher. So for unpopular laws it's always: "sorry, we can't do much about it, it was passed in Brussels...."
Please tell me how the power is separated when the legislative body in the EU is not democratically elected but derives from the members governments. I do not recognize the authority of the "European Council", as I have no possibility to participate, nor a right to vote for it - the EU parliament is also a sad joke, but at least we are granted to make our cross for them every 5 years...
What last instance do we have: the judicative, here in Germany the supreme court is often the last refugium of liberty, revoking idiotic laws. Oh yeah, in the EU we have the European court of justice, which is more occupied in controlling that EU laws are followed than defending the Europeans from an erosion of the individual rights.
Maybe I am too dumb to understand that it is all the best for me, maybe I am uncapable to decide on my own what's good for me, like a child. However if it is all for the better: why the hell aren't we asked? If something is hard to understand: explain it to us peasants. If we are asked to give up liberty, explain what the greater good is.
All this erosion of liberties and civil rights in the past years was always explained to us that it protects us for our own good.
I don't buy it.