second hand smoke isn't dangerous. Or, let's say, it's about as dangerous as global warming; if it has any truth at all, it's extremely limited and difficult to prove.

FYI, to a few posters; I pay just as much for the roads and the ambulances as you do, so don't tell me I can't use them because I don't act the way you want me to.

And in a free market, your premiums wouldn't BE affected by the actions of others; why would they be? If your insurance company is letting idiots take out policies, okay, you might pay a little more, but then go to a better company. It'd be the same as building credit. The only reason it doesn't work like that is government; and the solution is not MORE government, aka, seat belt laws, but LESS government, by eliminating the bad laws. Neal IS picking and choosing, NOT based on ideology or a consistent set of beliefs, but based just upon how he feels about an issue. Same with smoking, obesity, and the war on terror; all nonsense causes that Neal will gladly throw his political beliefs out the window to support.

"As soon as that person gets on a publicly funded road they have to comply with public law."
And the public law of GA says that pickup drivers don't need seatbelts, so by your own argument, you've just opposed Boortz. You can't appeal to public law in a debate about changing public law.

The truth is, they are on public roads, the public can set the rules for them. You already have to have a license to drive on a public road. Your car has to have proper tags to drive on a public road. You agree to follow all laws regarding the public roads, including seatbelt laws.

Also, if you get in an accident, if you aren't wearing your seatbelt, you have a much increased possibility of becoming a missle that could damage the property of another or cause serious bodily harm to another.

Most Libertarians are against the Federal Government mandating laws, ie, interfering with States rights. This is a Georgia seatbelt law, so Neal is in keeping with the Libertarian philosophy.

Now, my opinion is that it may increase the revenue my company will realize because j@ck@sses that don't wear seatbelts usually require the services my company provides. So Neal is actually for government interference in the marketplace ;-)

Neal argued yesterday that seatbelt laws are a legitimate government regulation, since you implicitly enter into a "contract" with the government when you drive on state-funded roadways. So my question is, what ELSE is legitimate on a roadway?

Should we not have 4th Amendment privacy rights in our vehicles if we're pulled over while driving? After all, we're entering into a contract with the government when we drive on their roadways. You have to pass through a metal detector when entering a government building, so why not vehicle searches?

Those causeless searches could be much easier, too, since police really shouldn't need a reason to pull you over, not even a pretextual one. Government roadways, and all. You don't like it? Don't drive.

Government can ban election slogan t-shirts in polling places, and they can regulate what you wear in certain government buildings, such as courtrooms. So why shouldn't they be able to ban bumper stickers, too? You're free to drive around with all the bumper stickers you want - on your own private property.

So the government owns the roads. And property rights have traditionally extended upward from the property line, not just along the ground. So Neal's gripes about the "public airwaves" defense of radio regulations doesn't make any sense, since the government should at least be able to control the airspace above their roadways. And besides, most radio waves are received and decoded by cars on government roadways.

Thank you Neal Boortz, Esq. for opening my eyes to these other legal possibilities. Though this still doesn't explain your support for smoking bans in private establishments....

Here is how I feel about seatbelts.

If you lack the common sense to put on a seatbelt and you die in an accident I see that as speeding up evolution. Weeding out the idiots.

How much money did the gov't save by have the victims of this crash die right there? Imagine the enormous bills for care if they had survived?! Imagine how much more money would have been spent on their care by Medicare and Medicaid if they lived to be 100!

The argument doesn't work.

You CAN pick and choose. Politics is not a game of finite rules. You can be against government growth in specific sectors but understand and accept it's role and growth in others. Libertarians aren't Anarchists. We believe in the role of government but for the most part, wish it to get the heck out of our way.

I have to say I agree with Chris. If the argument is about insurance premiums, lets make a law against sun-tanning. Doesn't this play a part in skin cancer? That increases my premiums. How about people with a history of hear problems in their family, lets do something about them too because they increase my premiums.

And for the record I wear a seatbelt, but I don't think the gov't should decide what is best for people. Brake lights, etc. are different matter...those actually have an effect on others on the road. If someone wants to throw themselves through a windshield, I say let em.

I have listened to Boortz a long time. I recall a few years ago, when he was still a Liberian, he was only for mandatory seat belt use for drivers. His reason was that in a crash, the driver should have to be kept in the drivers seat where they may be able to keep/regain control of the vehicle and perhaps avoid injuring someone else.

Now let's apply that logic to other parts of our society--say, the economy.

Clearly, the heads of AIG and other financial institutions are costing us money when they bungle their corporate practices and go begging for bailout money...

So, by your own argument, they should lose the right to operate those companies! Congratulations, you have just argued for federal takeover of those institutions.

Once again, welcome to reality! Glad you could join us.

Sneaky! Assume a contrarian pose and make us all think it all through. Eeevil - definitely not an approved instructional technique according to the gub'mint educational system.

Way to go!

Liberty has no limits until it gets to the point where my exercising liberty hinders you from exercising your liberty.

In applying this to seat belt laws, motorcycle helments, smoking, etc., the way our system is set up, the masses pay for the damages caused by the lack of seat belts, motorcycle helmets and lung cancer. The masses pay either through taxes for government assistance, higher insurance premiums, or ridiculous lawsuit settlements that drive product and service prices higher.

If we can set up systems where individuals are not financially harmed by the stupid decisions of others, then by all means, lose that seat belt or fly down the road on your bike helmet-free with a cigarette in your mouth.

first of all everyone shut up about boortz being a bad libertarian do you agree with every single thing that your political party stands for? or does everything that comes out of your mouth agree with your parties agenda? everyone is allowed to have their own oppinion. my only question would be if people do not wear their seatbelts now more than likely they will not wear them when it is against the law. not wearing one is a personal choice and that choice probably wont change for the majority of truck owners/drivers. but boortz keep up the good work i love lisening to you on my way to school

The seatbelt argument is not even in the same ballpark as the helmet argument. Seatbelts keep you firmly strapped to your seat in adverse driving conditions. In situations where you have lost control of your vehicle, a seatbelt will give you greater control of your vehicle. If you're not buckled in and the car is trying to throw you in a specific direction (from slamming on brakes, taking a sharp turn, etc.) you have to support your body weight with the same legs and arms you're trying to control your vehicle with. When you're buckled in, you can devote all of your attention to controlling the vehicle (to the best of your ability). Like it or not, whether or not you wear your seatbelt greatly affects those around you because it's the difference between you being someone trying to control your vehicle and you being a useless lump holding on for dear life when push comes to shove.

Neal's argument is that one can drive on one's own property without a seat belt, drunk, with a groundhog in his lap for all Neal cares. As soon as that person gets on a publicly funded road they have to comply with public law. If your argument is that not wearing a seat belt doesn't hurt other drivers consider this: a drunk driver makes it home. They drove drunk but did not hurt another driver. Does that make the situation ok? I did not think so. Public law on public roads.

To combat the "smoking" peeve. Second hand smoke harms others as well. Smokers also harm business because they are sick more often (rising health care costs for others through taxes once they reach medicare/medicaid age) and are generally less productive at their job.

Sorry Neal. I have learned a lot from you, but you are not only wrong but you are "DEAD" wrong. Saying that 'by the end of the year Bill Richardson will have blood on his hands' is WAY too harsh and illogical. Your assumption is that it is purely Govt. seatbelt LAWS which save people's lives or keep people from getting hurt and that assumption completely contradicts the Libertarian virtue of self-government ideas. If people are stupid enough to get into a death machine without buckling up, the "blood" is NOT on the governments hands it is on their own. You should revise the following statement:
"How many people will die on Georgia roads during the next year because of one obstinate politician in Atlanta?"

to read: "How many STUPID people will die on Georgia roads during the next year because of idiot rednecks who think they are too cool to buckle up?"

Neal, you usually pick your fights wisely. This is comparable to the idiotic drug-war, and not worth fighting for or opening up your NEWS with on the website.

Boortz's argument for seat belt laws is fallacious. If all you got is "protecting" people from being injured or killed then we need to start with outlawing motorcycles...how bout it boortz? Ohhh I forgot you ride those death machines...and you talk about smokers?

The argument that the government can do whatever it wants just because the behavior takes place on public property is nonsense. When the constitution limits the power of the government, it makes no distinction between public and private property. The government has no business interferring in the stupidity of its citizens.

I can use your argument to make a case that we shouldn't allow motocycles on the road. And we certainly shouldn't allow those dangerous private aircraft.

I do not want laws telling me I can or cannot be an idiot. I don't want the Gov't telling me to eat my green beans because it would be healthy and cut health costs for everyone. I want the Gov't to keep out of my life! Neal buddy, you might be my favorite talk show host, but I am disappointed in you.

Personally I'm tired of the Gov't trying to impede the natural selction process that Darwin made famous.

The guy was right. You want to have it both ways with freedom and responsibility until it's two things that you despise--smoking and seatbelts. But that's OK Neal. Everyone is a hypocrite about some things, and this just happens to be your thing. Don't worry about it.

I must say that I agree with Neal...I want the government to have less expenses, and therefore less government. If people are driving around like idiots and turning themselves into flesh missiles that doesn't bother me....it does however bother me that the government has to pay people to out and clean up your brains off the sidewalk. The less room we give the government to spend, the better.

I was scratching my head about that seat belt argument yesterday. I have heard Neal going bananas on his show about seat belt enforcement, and he was arguing AGAINST it. What gives? No, it does not affect anyone else but your own dumb self if you're not wearing a seat belt. If Neal wants to argue that it does because people have to be treated for their injuries, etc, same with smoking, then where do you stop? The government should also oversee what we eat, how often we exercise, how many children we should have, and the list goes on. I agree with the email, you're either for government running your life, or you're not.

Liberty includes the freedom to be an idiot. The government has no constitutional authority to require seatbelts -- or motorcycle helmets, or prevent smoking, or any other idiotic, gene-cleansing behavior. Society NEEDS idiots to engage in self-destructive behavior. Preventing them from doing so merely produces more idiots.

Neal, if you think government should protect idiots from dying in car crashes, then why are you against protecting idiots from injecting drugs into their bodies? I'm with you one ending the drug war, but your stance on seatbelt laws baffles me.

So what's your response to Chris's point, Neal?