Loading ...
MEMBER NOTE
There is a substantial difference between imposing regulations on employers requiring them to address hazards which expose employees to danger where they are required to work, and infringing on the liberty of individuals, even for a 'good cause'.
Mandating that individuals wear seat belts (or wear motorcycle helmets, or 'secure' firearms in the home, etc.) will indeed prevent deaths and injury. However, the exact same logic says that to prevent more deaths and injuries, we should ban automobiles altogether; ban motorcycles; ban alcohol (already tried that one); ban firearms; make overeating a crime; and outlaw sports.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there are 120,000 accidental deaths per year caused by Physicians (i.e., ACCIDENTAL deaths). By this logic, we could prevent over 100,000 accidental deaths each year by banning doctors.
Maybe we should reconsider allowing government to attach strings like these to the allocation of taxpayer dollars and leave state laws in the hands of states, where it belongs constitutionally. Just a thought.
As Thomas Jefferson said: "I'd rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too little."
Hank Roberts
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (2)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I found the post from Hank Roberts to be quite an interesting take on safety by putting the "Liberty" spin on it. To counter each of his comments, I am simply going to use simple logic. Not wearing any protective gear regardless of what you are doing, means disregard of the impact on your personal health, medical costs in your community and the effect on your family.
Automobiles don't kill...drivers do...through inattention, lack of skill, poor maintenance of the automobile, multitasking while driving and not focusing on the single task of operating the automobile in a safe manner.
Guns don't kill people either, people do...which impacts all the above noted sectors. Alcohol impacts personal health, Social health, healthcare costs and yes, your family.
By actually reducing (or eliminating)these social conditions, doctors wouldn't have the opportunity to see these injuries or conditions, hence a reduction in accidental deaths as well.
I agree each state needs to take responsibility for it's own social ills. By all means, Liberty is a right, but not at the expense expense of the well being of the nation. Businees needs direction (regulations) to prevent unnecessary abuse of basic rights and freedoms as well as taking the responsibility (through training, standards, guidelines, etc(again regulated) for the employee while they are in their employ. Assessment of hazards and well mapped processes are truly the employers' responsibility. Liberty in my mind has no place in this process.
Bob Speaker
For those who missed it, this discussion is related to Glenn Demby's article from Feb 20, "Safety Trends". I don't want start a shouting match with Bob, but I think he's made two errors in his response.
First, I believe he missed my point altogether. While the arguments in the first four paragraphs might be valid (I don't think they are, logically, but it doesn't matter), they do not address anything I said. My point was that constitutionally, there is no justification for the Fed to meddle in the States' legitimate realm of deciding how to address seat belts: they simply are beyond their legitimate authority when they intervene in this issue.
The argument used to justify such intervention (it saves lives) is logically flawed as well as unconstitutional, and I gave examples of the flaw in that argument.
While I absolutely support the use of seat belts, and absolutely OPPOSE state laws mandating their use (personal liberties issue), such laws are in fact the legitimate realm of States, not of the Fed.
The second error I believe Bob has made is that in spite of his offer to 'counter each of my comments with simple logic', he does not. What follows is, in fact, a set of fine examples of logical fallacies: Non Sequitur, Straw Man, Appeal to Pity, and Circular Argument.
However, the flaw in presentation does nothing to negate an important point in his argument. Bob goes on to say that regulations to restrain harm and to regulate efforts to do good, related to safety in the workplace, are necessary. I absolutely agree. "Imposing regulations on employers requiring them to address hazards which expose employees to danger where they are required to work" is a perfectly legitimate function of both state AND federal government.
Bob is clearly passionate about safety; a passion I share. I believe Bob and I also agree that Workplace Safety regulations are both necessary and legitimate federal issues.