Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not arguing from the philosophical standpoint that others are taking, I'm arguing from reality. The fact is that ANY law restricts your freedom. However, my argument is against those who ride on the philosophical statement and try to derive that they are "less" free to do things here in NJ compared to other states. Reality is that while you can stat rank all the states and put NJ at bottom, the difference between number 1 and number 49 is very thin indeed.
If the best we can come up with are restrictive gun laws and having to wear seatbelts, what exactly are we complaining about? The plain truth is that the vast majority of people don't even notice the restrictions these laws place on them.
What is your definition of corruption? Nepotism, embezzlement or something else? That was my point, actual corruption and lack of freedom are not necessarily tied together. I'm sure the freest people in the land up in New Hampshire can share stories of corruption.
The stronger correlation that actually applies to the United States is the one I pointed out earlier. The larger and more dense the population, the more laws and rules that are required. Look at the "freedom index" that started the thread, all of the low ranked states have the highest populations or areas of high density.
If you want to standby the assertion that the innocuous rules necessary to manage a densely populated area result in less freedom than so be it. However, I don't see these rules as eroding my personal freedom and interfering in my ability to live my life.
PA has this as well. the state purchases all the liquor for sale...and you have to go to a "Wine and Liquor" store to purchase either. The benefit, supposedly, is volume purchasing. I've gotten some great deals on some wines in PA. It's an archaic law though, used to control a "vice" such as liquor. They've relaxed their rules on beer sales, but it's still restricted.
PA has this as well. the state purchases all the liquor for sale...and you have to go to a "Wine and Liquor" store to purchase either. The benefit, supposedly, is volume purchasing. I've gotten some great deals on some wines in PA. It's an archaic law though, used to control a "vice" such as liquor. They've relaxed their rules on beer sales, but it's still restricted.
PA is nuttier than NH, those commies!
I didn't find the prices in NH to be all that competitive.
the reason why you are forced to wear a seat belt is because we all share the cost of insurance. if i hit you in your car, and you become a vegetable because you didn't have your seatbelt on, you then get to sue the pants off of me. so you forgetting to buckle up is infringing on others' right to less expensive car insurance that we would have if there were less idiots driving on the roads.
If I get to sue you because you caused the accident, that is not infringing on your rights whether I'm wearing a seatbelt or not. We "share" the cost of car insurance only in the sense that we all have it. What it should cost an individual should depend on his or her driving record and relevant factors; e.g., an insurance company may limit their liability or charge more if a person doesn't wear seat belts. Why should any one individual have his freedom restricted because others act foolishly.
quote=bradykp;19689073]the rest of your post is just dribble not even worth addressing.[/quote]
You mean the part you snipped where I showed that we don't even get good service from the government for the high taxes we pay. Or maybe you can't address it, i.e.,
I can get a ticket if I forget to buckle my car seat belt. Now I think it's a good idea to put your seat belt on and almost always do, but it's an infringement on my freedom if I'm forced to and can get fined if I don't. Another, I happen to do some target shooting. I had to pay about $100 to get a firearms ID; when I moved, I again had to pay $100 and go through the process since apparently it goes by city. Another, the city charged me $100 to get a "certificate of occupancy" when I sold my house. To get this, a guy just came over and checked that the smoke alarms were working. The town also charged the realtor $100 just for putting a "For Sale" sign on my property. Another, the city sent me a letter saying the grass was too long in my BACK yard, and I'd have to cut it or get fined. Another, I have to pay a huge property tax bill for services I don't even want or get. In the 3 or 4 times I was the victim of a crime, the police were no help at all, and in fact data show that only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police have no effect on the crime rate. I could extend the list at some length, but the message is obvious.
1. That table shows the clearance rate--"Percent of Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means"
2. The clearance rate is reported by the police themselves; that's like having a student grade his own test; and in fact many departments have been found to be exaggerating their clearance rate.
3. Less than half of all arrests result in a conviction
In only about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes is someone caught and convicted for the crime.
"...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a conviction."
--"Tougher Laws Will Not Prevent Crime. "Malcolm C Young, Marc Mauer, In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998
Less than half (about 42%) of all murders are ever solved, and that's using DoJ/FBI figures for clearance, percentage prosecuted, and percentage convicted and assuming NO unreported or unknown murders (see, eg, _Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice_, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor. Macmillan 2002).
In one study, in only 11% of reported cases of sexual assault was someone caught and convicted (Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL: The prosecution of sexual assault cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39:39-46.)
And over half of all crimes are never even reported..
The Department of Justice's own data on victimization (e.g., for 2004 Table 91) Criminal Victimization in the United States--Percent distribution of victimizations, by type of crime and whether or not reported to the police http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf...ent/cv0491.pdf) found that about 57.5% of crimes overall, and nearly 50% of all violent crimes are never reported.
In _Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice_ by Charles Silberman, Random House, New York (p76), it states: "Census Bureau surveys of crime victims indicate that only about half of all robberies, less than half of all burglaries, and about one-fourth of all larcenies are reported to the police."
In my own experience, when my car, my brother's car, my sister-in-law's car, and 3 or 4 friends and relatives cars were stolen, the police did not solve the crime.
Reality is that while you can stat rank all the states and put NJ at bottom, the difference between number 1 and number 49 is very thin indeed.
Sure, if you include North Korea in the mix.
Quote:
If the best we can come up with are restrictive gun laws and having to wear seatbelts, what exactly are we complaining about? The plain truth is that the vast majority of people don't even notice the restrictions these laws place on them.
It's said you can get used to hanging if you hang long enough. That the people no longer notice the restrictions does not mean they are not there.
Quote:
The stronger correlation that actually applies to the United States is the one I pointed out earlier. The larger and more dense the population, the more laws and rules that are required.
The larger and more dense the population, the more people around who feel it is their job to tell you what to do.
Quote:
If you want to standby the assertion that the innocuous rules necessary to manage a densely populated area result in less freedom than so be it. However, I don't see these rules as eroding my personal freedom and interfering in my ability to live my life.
I don't find the rules innocuous, and to claim they don't result in less freedom is ridiculous. You're claiming necessity, but even if that were so, it would not make the laws any less a reduction in freedom.
If I get to sue you because you caused the accident, that is not infringing on your rights whether I'm wearing a seatbelt or not. We "share" the cost of car insurance only in the sense that we all have it. What it should cost an individual should depend on his or her driving record and relevant factors; e.g., an insurance company may limit their liability or charge more if a person doesn't wear seat belts. Why should any one individual have his freedom restricted because others act foolishly.
Cut out the part that was just repeated from earlier posts.
Insurance is based on risk. If more people in NJ are seriously injured or die in car accidents because they don't wear seatbelts than in other areas, NJ's risk profile is higher and we will all pay more for insurance. This is the "relevant factors" you were talking about.
It's said you can get used to hanging if you hang long enough. That the people no longer notice the restrictions does not mean they are not there.
The larger and more dense the population, the more people around who feel it is their job to tell you what to do.
I don't find the rules innocuous, and to claim they don't result in less freedom is ridiculous. You're claiming necessity, but even if that were so, it would not make the laws any less a reduction in freedom.
lol, on North Korea, that one made me chuckle.
Kim Jong Il looking at corn...
OK fine, we are "less" free in NJ. I can't drive my car without a seatbelt. I can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I can't smoke in a restaurant or bar. I can't carry a gun. I can't hire unlicensed professionals to do work for me. On top of that my town requires me to get my home inspected before I sell or rent it. My town also makes me mow my lawn and won't let me run a used car lot out of my front yard. I also can't pour waste oil down the storm drains.
Maybe some of us are perfectly fine with reasonable rules and laws that promote common sense and civility in a densely populated state. Others would prefer to live in a place with no laws so they could be free to do what they please.
Hey, maybe that's another way to put it, a different kind of density. Let's say 1 out of 100 people are dumb and lack any common sense. In a lot of places there is one dumb person per square mile, maybe less. In NJ, there are 11+ per square mile. I have a much greater chance of being effected by the actions of an idiot here, than I do in another state. So, I'm willing to give a little to minimize the impact.
If I get to sue you because you caused the accident, that is not infringing on your rights whether I'm wearing a seatbelt or not. We "share" the cost of car insurance only in the sense that we all have it. What it should cost an individual should depend on his or her driving record and relevant factors; e.g., an insurance company may limit their liability or charge more if a person doesn't wear seat belts. Why should any one individual have his freedom restricted because others act foolishly.
quote=bradykp;19689073]the rest of your post is just dribble not even worth addressing.
You mean the part you snipped where I showed that we don't even get good service from the government for the high taxes we pay. Or maybe you can't address it, i.e.,
I can get a ticket if I forget to buckle my car seat belt. Now I think it's a good idea to put your seat belt on and almost always do, but it's an infringement on my freedom if I'm forced to and can get fined if I don't. Another, I happen to do some target shooting. I had to pay about $100 to get a firearms ID; when I moved, I again had to pay $100 and go through the process since apparently it goes by city. Another, the city charged me $100 to get a "certificate of occupancy" when I sold my house. To get this, a guy just came over and checked that the smoke alarms were working. The town also charged the realtor $100 just for putting a "For Sale" sign on my property. Another, the city sent me a letter saying the grass was too long in my BACK yard, and I'd have to cut it or get fined. Another, I have to pay a huge property tax bill for services I don't even want or get. In the 3 or 4 times I was the victim of a crime, the police were no help at all, and in fact data show that only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police have no effect on the crime rate. I could extend the list at some length, but the message is obvious.
1. That table shows the clearance rate--"Percent of Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means"
2. The clearance rate is reported by the police themselves; that's like having a student grade his own test; and in fact many departments have been found to be exaggerating their clearance rate.
3. Less than half of all arrests result in a conviction
In only about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes is someone caught and convicted for the crime.
"...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a conviction."
--"Tougher Laws Will Not Prevent Crime. "Malcolm C Young, Marc Mauer, In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998
Less than half (about 42%) of all murders are ever solved, and that's using DoJ/FBI figures for clearance, percentage prosecuted, and percentage convicted and assuming NO unreported or unknown murders (see, eg, _Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice_, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor. Macmillan 2002).
In one study, in only 11% of reported cases of sexual assault was someone caught and convicted (Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL: The prosecution of sexual assault cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39:39-46.)
And over half of all crimes are never even reported..
The Department of Justice's own data on victimization (e.g., for 2004 Table 91) Criminal Victimization in the United States--Percent distribution of victimizations, by type of crime and whether or not reported to the police http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf...ent/cv0491.pdf) found that about 57.5% of crimes overall, and nearly 50% of all violent crimes are never reported.
In _Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice_ by Charles Silberman, Random House, New York (p76), it states: "Census Bureau surveys of crime victims indicate that only about half of all robberies, less than half of all burglaries, and about one-fourth of all larcenies are reported to the police."
In my own experience, when my car, my brother's car, my sister-in-law's car, and 3 or 4 friends and relatives cars were stolen, the police did not solve the crime.[/quote]
I get excellent services for the taxes I pay. The public schools in a majority of NJ are excellent, compared with the rest of the country. The town I live in picks up my garbage, cleans the streets, plows the streets rather quickly (even this year, in the horrible storms). The county I live in has a really nice golf course, and 2 other decent golf courses. There's also a really nice Zoo near my home, with a new mini-golf course. The state has a pretty good economy, and far-above average public transportation options in many areas. The highways help get me around. Crime in NJ is relatively low, considering how densely populated it is.
Like i said...dribble...not really worth addressing.
And NJ is a no-fault state. but sure, you can sue me if it's my fault but my point is...if you take some basic safety precautions, like wearing a seatbelt, in most car accidents even if it is my fault, it would remove any physical damage to your body that you end up sueing me for. So really, having no seatbelt law just helps put more legal fees into lawyers pockets when someone gets unnecessarily injured. also - driving is not a right...so any restrictions enforced on driving have nothing to do with taking away your freedoms.
as NJGOAT has said...the movement of people who often talk about losing "personal freedoms" often has no clue what freedoms really are. it's too bad, because that energy could be better used to address ACTUAL issues in government, instead of fake ones, like saying NJ is the 49th least free state in the country.
go be free in New Hampshire. tell me how you like it, and how it changes your life.
Cut out the part that was just repeated from earlier posts.
Insurance is based on risk. If more people in NJ are seriously injured or die in car accidents because they don't wear seatbelts than in other areas, NJ's risk profile is higher and we will all pay more for insurance. This is the "relevant factors" you were talking about.
somehow, i doubt he/she can understand this concept that the risky behavior of a few people will adversely affect the majority.
i'd love to see what happens to the mortality rate in NJ if they got rid of something as basic as the seatbelt law. With the quantity of accidents in this state, it would probably be alarming how many people that would die each year.
no one has the freedom to be an a-hole on the road, where your actions affect others around you. whether these folks like it or not. we're not "free" to yell "fire" in a crowded public space either, unless there really is a fire. the sad thing is, a majority of our laws/restrictions exist because of idiots in this country. if people just wore their damn seatbelt, because it's the logical thing to do, we wouldn't have had to create a law to enforce logic...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
