Thursday, April 1, 2010

Looks Like They Are Going to Go After Rand Paul On the Basic Freedom Issues

HuffPo is reporting that in an interview in the upcoming Sunday New York Times magazine, Rand Paul says that he doesn't believe that automobile passengers should be required to wear seat belts:
But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.

I think the federal government shouldn't be involved. I don't want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do
I am not sure NYT and HuffPo ever got Thomas Jefferson's idea of what freedom means. The NYT's follow up question to Rand Paul is, if you want to call it a question:
You shouldn’t trivialize issues of health and safety by calling them nanny issues.
HuffPo's comment is:
Maybe Paul should run for the Senate in New Hampshire -- it's the only state that does not require adults to wear them (after all, the state's legendary motto is "Live Free Or Die").

Now, we will have to see if the people of Kentucky are as confused about what freedom means, as are HuffPo and NYT.


  1. Nicholas J. KasterApril 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

    HuffPo also does not understand the concept of federalism. Paul said specifically "the federal government shouldn't be involved."

  2. This person IN Kentucky doesn't need a nanny to tell him whether to wear a seat belt or not! And I don't appreciate cops targeting citizens for revenue over seat belts!

  3. Not that it's relevant to the principle, but it's interesting to note that New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest motorist fatality rate (per vehicle mile) in the country.