Guest Post by Eric Peters
Are you more likely to be injured in a car crash because you weren’t wearing a seat belt – or because you were?
Both are possibilities – and sometimes, actualities.
An unbuckled driver might be hurled out of the vehicle and crushed by it (this happened to someone I know). But he could also be trapped inside the vehicle and burnt to death (or drowned) because rescuers couldn’t reach him in time to cut him free.
But the proper question isn’t which is more likely to happen but rather, who has the right to decide which of these two risks alarms them more.
Is it ourselves? Or is it someone else?
The government asserts – via laws and men with guns – its power to make that decision (and many others) on our behalf and contrary to our own preferences. This is a pretty outrageous thing, when you think about it a little bit.
More than outrageous.
Evil.
But it’s an evil principle that’s been accepted via a kind of mesmeritic philosophical-moral osmosis, over several generations. It is the idea that the government is (effectively) our parent and endowed with the rightful authority that parents have over children to protect them – for their own good (as decided by the parent).
Of course, it is never stated in such explicitly honest terms. It is implied – and that is enough to obtain, if not the consent of those parented, at least their compliance (based on the threat of violence, always hovering, for non-compliance).
The problem, of course, is that we are not children and the people who operate the levers (and wield the guns) of government are not our parents. We don’t even know these people, except by name and title. And they only know us in a figurative sense – as “the public.”
Or something worse.
What gives these people the right to claim parental authority over grown-up men and women unrelated to them?
Italicized to emphasize the philosophical-moral issue at hand. The people who constitute this fictitious entity styled “the government” certainly have the power to enforce their decrees – but that is a very different thing than rightful authority of the sort exercised by parents on behalf of their minor children.
And what the government does isn’t parenting. That is an inaccurate – a much-too-benign – term. The government is – and does – something much less savory.
A parent’s job is both natural and kind; it is to prepare the child to be a free and independent adult – a person no longer in need of parenting. It is a temporary and short-term occupation in the scheme of things, with the end result being (hopefully) another free adult.
What government asserts is ownership – in perpetuity – of infantilized adults.
The object is not the eventual independence of the pupil – so to speak- but rather his permanent submission to the power of the government. By which is really meant the power of the relative handful of people who comprise it.
There is a better name for this arrangement. It is slavery.
Everyone is opposed to this, of course – but for cognitively dissonant and conditioned reasons, only when it’s obvious.
Massa in his great house; an overseer keeping the field hands compliant. But do we not live on a very large plantation ourselves? Is not the arrangement the same in its essentials?
The “massas” are several, federal state and local – but they assert ownership over us just the same as the one – and they use overseers (armed government workers) just the same to enforce their asserted ownership. How else to view this business of grown men and women being told they will wear a seat belt (and hand over a portion of their earnings and accept being told what they may do with their property, with whom they may associate – and so on) else be punished?
The massas’ doctrine is premised on our being their property – which they claim a (specious) right to protect.
Put another way: The only way such a right would not be specious would be if we are in fact their property; if they do own us.
Owners have every right to do as they please with their property. It defines the relationship.
Just the same as we assert ownership over our dog or cat, say. No one disputes our right to have Fido or Felix “fixed” and groomed, to decide what they will eat and where they will be allowed to roam (or not) . . . and to punish them when they act contrary to our wishes.
Because it is understood that these critters are our property. 
Just the same as massa (singular) in the great house asserted his ownership over his slaves by ordering them about, managing their lives and having his overseer threaten to or actually whip them if they disregarded his authority.
Is this sounding familiar to you yet?
Seatbelt laws are no different; they are merely a manifestation of ownership.
It may seem a trivial thing to object to “buckling up,” but it is not the buckling-up that’s being called out. It is the asserted authority to compel the buckling up.
A very big principle is at stake.
By accepting that the government – just other people, remember – has the rightful authority to take away from us the free choice to assume any risk affecting ourselves only because it (they) considers those risks unacceptable, we have accepted the evil principle that the government has a property interest in us.
That we are owned by the government.
By the people who are the government.
Does it rankle? It ought to. But it doesn’t – for most people – who’ve been narcoticized by their conditioning to accept such effronteries as both normal and desirable. With the vicious consequence of the field hands begging to be controlled – and owned – to ever greater decrees by demanding controls be imposed on others, who then demand controls imposed upon them in turn.
Cui bono?
Only the massas – rendered in the plural.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Buckling up was never about saving lives. It is about control. The control of freedom of choice, to tax, to, to ownership of property and the right to parenting in general. Welcome to progressism or if you prefer socializm. George Carlin, hate him or love him, has it correct.
The legion from the Bible is upon us I feel. The big question is, will we survive it as a country and people.
I think this is the only article from this author I’ve ever totally agreed with. His other rants against electric vehicles, although mostly accurate technically miss the point of EV’s being the future; a desirable one in my estimation.
I’ll believe in democracy when there are 7.5 billion of them, each with a population of 1. I don’t need no stinking gov’t and have positioned myself as much as possible to avoid effective gov’t. Where I am, gov’t is restricted by resources and is hence fairly benign. That’s the key to avoiding tyranny these days – find a place where gov’t hasn’t the wherewithal to impose its ludicrous laws effectively.
The US Fed Gov is the pinnacle of the nanny state and has the resources and requisite human swine to enforce their edicts. When the US Dollar loses its Reserve Currency status, things will change rapidly as the smoke and mirrors will clear to reveal a naked police state for all to see.
In my estimation, violence, especially in the urban areas, is an almost 100% certainty. That’s where all my close relatives live, in the definition of urban – New York City.
The police, military and other assorted morons wearing costumes and carrying weaponry but sans brains or morality will, at least for a time, carry out gov’ts wishes. They will shoot the average person when told to do so. Once they finally realize that their brothers in arms are murdering their relatives, the light will finally dawn on these cretins that what they’re doing is wrong. Many innocent people may die for their belated education.
Stock up on precious metals – gold, silver and lead.
It depends on where your electricity is generated and by what means…..
There are varying ‘facts’ about how efficient EV’s are. Each one depends on the starting point for evaluation.
I can’t say I’ve found a reliable site to satisfy me that their efficiency figures are correct. However, an electric motor turns far more input power to output power than an ICE engine, so my instinct is to give the EV the edge and by quite a significant margin.
Given that an EV can fuel from solar and wind, then that power is largely free and clean once one discounts the filth and energy that creates those products. I’m also inclined to say that overall they are a net benefit given their long useful lives. Since an ICE can’t use those sources, EV wins.
If one considers fossil fuels, then a power plant is far more efficient at converting BTU’s to energy than an ICE is at turning highly processed gasoline or diesel into locomotion. There again, I give it to the EV.
The climate change argument against fossil fuels is a political distraction and without merit. Scrubbers on smoke stacks remove most of the real pollutants. Their ultimate disposal is an issue and is why I strongly urge people to investigate molten salt reactors, specifically LFTR as that technology is the best and cleanest I’m aware of.
If more people knew about the benefits of that tech, then maybe more people would push for its adoption. Existing light water reactors are very efficient but current law turns their ‘spent fuel’ into a problem when in fact that fuel still contains about 98% of its usable energy and could be consumed by a molten salt reactor. US law is the stumbling block, not the available technology.
The lithium in spent batteries doesn’t vanish. It’s still there but in a degraded form. Reprocessing batteries to recover the lithium will, I believe, become viable in the not too distant future. Other battery tech is also under development, such as flow batteries. So, in conclusion, I think it matters little where the electricity comes from in the aggregate.
“Given that an EV can fuel from solar and wind, then that power is largely free and clean once one discounts the filth and energy that creates those products.”
SAO could confuse Mr. Spock.
I do not wear a seatbelt, and have not worn one since I was trapped in a sideswipe wreck and nearly killed. Fuck ’em – if the law is stupid, then do not obey it. Pay the fine and go your way. They don’t care about your breaking the law – they care about putting in their quota of tickets. We all know this, and the only real solution is to ignore bad laws.
Just say it Peters – if the law is stupid or senseless, then don’t obey it. Don’t bitch about it, stop whining and START disoeying – you’ll feel better immediately.
While I don’t disagree with the argument that all of this shit (drug war, war on medical freedom, war on transportation freedom, etc.) is about control and government ownership of the citizenry, what is being left out is the argument that is always used along with the “safety” bullshit – taxpayers costs for medical care.
When the government STEALS from one group to hand out to another, there are always strings attached. When the government started paying the medical bills of some using the monies of others, it was inevitable that someone would step up and want to know what was being done to keep the theft at a minimum. All of the things that could potentially drive up costs to the government suddenly became nanny-state targets.
At the same time, insurance companies also jumped on the bandwagon. If you are wearing your seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, etc. with many if not most companies, the payout for medical issues is larger than if you are not. While I do find such things annoying, in a free market this would be fine, and I would have the choice of complying, getting paid less, or switching companies. Of course we have nothing close to a free market in insurance either, combined with government edicts that force the purchase of insurance.
Whenever government is involved, especially in paying out, expect the worst. The money NEVER comes without strings, and those strings may take an infinite number of forms, none of which ever increase freedom, liberty, or choice.
why dont school buses have seatbelts then?
They spent the money on cameras and mace for the driver.
They spent the money on anatomically-correct dolls for sex ed classes for the 5 year olds.
Forty years ago, that might’ve been true, but in my township, all the school vehicles do, but the law isn’t enforced.
I’ve had stupid parents ask why their Little Angels aren’t wearing belts and are up running around while the bus is moving, as if it’s the driver’s job to constantly stop the bus and strap the mongrels in. If they were made to heed the rules it would last five minutes into an hour-long ride with a tight schedule and the bus would never get anyone dropped off on time. I’ve seen middle school kids threaten drivers with their jobs and livelyhood for angrily correcting them when the kids can’t behave, then sneer openly about it. Zero respect for adults when you remove summary corporal punishment from schools and give the kiddies an after-school time out for being assholes.
Maybe you should talk to a bus driver and learn a thing or two. Not all kids are like that but enough of them are.
Having worked as a NYC Paramedic for over a decade, I choose to only wear a seat belt when on the highway. In the dense city with all of the grid-like cross-street intersections, I have responded to countless accidents. When a car blows through a red light or stop sign and “T-Bones” a car right into the driver’s door, everything depends upon whether that driver had a seat belt on or not. The guy without the belt lands in the passenger seat with a bunch of bruises. The guy with the belt on is removed from the car with a sponge (if you can find him).
Conversely, highway accidents tend to be front/back, and usually the belt does actually save lives.
I agree with the author. It is my choice and my choice alone to make that decision. If I make the wrong choice, it’s on me. If the government makes the wrong choice, does the government get the blame?
” If I make the wrong choice, it’s on me.”
Or your kids, or the person in the passenger seat…
Years ago, in a vehicle safety class, I met a big cop who wasn’t wearing his seat belt while on patrol with his partner. Drunk hit the side of the patrol car. The cop flew to the side and crushed his partner simply with the mass of his body. He watched his partner die. When I met him, he was a skinny guy who couldn’t get over it.
None of us are an island.