The safety belt law forces an administrative direction that can, at most, be held to ensure just the individual subject whose conduct is being limited. Why should the government be able to tell an individual what to do in the privacy of his or her vehicle?
Being someone who was born in the United States I have always had freedoms that I understand not everyone in the world are offered these same rights as a citizen in their particular country. The United States has been labeled among other things the land of the free by the rest of the world. This is because we have the right to start businesses, buy or sell consumer goods, pretty much anything that we like. Also, I believe that the government should work in unison with the people who are
…show more content…
But in doing so it also gives you the freedom to drive and have peace of mind, feeling safer behind the wheel or as a passenger. Hobbes understood that “The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone” and being behind the wheel is no different (2). Thus the government should provide security for the selfish as well as for the unselfish, the rational and the irrational. Laws are created to provide freedom from danger for all citizens, for example you have laws that you can’t commit murder. This is an extremely example but the premises are the same for both; the governing body created a law that removed the freedom to kills someone. Rights are being taken away, yet citizens under that governing body are free from the idea of murder or loss of life at the hands of another person. Rachels suggested that rational people will accept the rules of the governing body, on the condition that others accept them as well”(3). He also asked "which moral govern should we acknowledge?" The appropriate response is those principles that encourage symphonious social living; the one restricting homicide, rape, assault, and burglary, are some illustration and tenets like sexual indiscrimination are not upheld by the social contract