When You Live in La-La-Land

By -
the real world looks so strange:

"By the way, according to the New York State seat belt law, Police/Fire and Ambulances (along with Taxis, Liveries, and Buses other than School Buses—I wonder what’s up with that) are exempt from having to wear seat belts. Again, control for you and me, but not for the State’s “chosen.” Or perhaps the State just doesn’t love police, firemen, EMTs, cabbies, and bus drivers as much as it loves us?"

Perhaps David Kramer is unaware of this, but New York allows anyone, even LRC writers, to ride in buses, cabs, and livery vehicles. So, the "State's chosen" turns out to be... everyone! Hurray!

Comments

  1. ivanfoofoo12:42 PM

    This is what puzzles me about some libertarians. They oppose those kind of laws, but if those rules were created by the owners of a gated community giving those "privileges" to its private security agency, they wouldn't say anything. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:12 AM

    Is the law that bus and taxi passengers don't have to wear seat belts or that bus and taxi drivers don't have to do so? To the extent the exemption includes passengers then of course the "State's chosen" would potentially include anyone. But on its face the law appears to apply to passengers only if they are sitting in the front seat (which would be rare for a taxi and impossible for a bus). On the other hand, if the law means that a cabbie or bus driver doesn't have to wear a belt, then that's kind of odd, given how much time they spend driving.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more