Here we go again. For this Legislature, overriding this governor’s vetoes is like breathing — if they stopped doing it, you’d need to check their pulses. That’s the case with anything he tries to do in terms of upholding the constitution (his vetoes of "local legislation"), or defending Home Rule or trying to assert a sensible spending practice.
But let him do something stupid, based in his hyperlibertarian ideology, and all of a sudden they’re on his side.
I just heard that the Senate has sustained his veto of the ATV-safety bill — which really wouldn’t have done all that much, but might have saved the life of a child here and there.
I’m sure many of their constituents are relieved. Cause you know, Bubba does love runnin’ around on that thing…
Related Posts
>>> hyperlibertarian ideology
Others might describe it as expecting people to be responsible for themselves instead of wasting the government’s time on trivial issues.
Thankfully, Governor Sanford doesn’t believe in cradle to grave government oversight of every aspect of human existence.
For such a big fan of “representative democracy”, how come you complain when the system does what it was set up to do?
Yeah, well I call it hyperlibertarian. The thing would not have been a burden on anybody, and MIGHT, despite it’s incrementalism, have saved a life or two.
For people who place common sense ahead of ideology, that’s a pretty easy computation.
And here’s how representative democracy works — the representatives make the laws (or don’t, in this case), and the rest of us have a lively debate about it, until it’s time for US to vote again. Anyway, that’s what we’re doing here.
Yeah,let’s get rid of those pesky seatbelts and child car-seats while we’re at it.I want to die with all the “liberty” I can get.
>> Yeah,let’s get rid of those pesky seatbelts
>> and child car-seats while we’re at it.I
>> want to die with all the “liberty” I can
>> get.
Hey, if you need the government to tell you to wear your seatbelt and use a child seat, then you probably need them to tell you when it’s time to eat as well.
This law would have required parents to pay $75 for a safety course and allow for fines of $50 to $200 for parents who allowed children to ride without helmets. Do you really think the police are going to head out into the boondocks to track down a kid riding without a helmet? Surely they have better things to do.
According to this report:
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/atv2002.pdf
there were a grand total of 40 ATV deaths in South Carolina for ALL ages in the twenty year period from 1982-2001. 40.
Total. How many were kids? How many could have been prevented by wearing a helmet? We’re probably talking about fewer than five preventable incidents in 20 years.
Let’s ban skateboards, water skiing, going outside in thunderstorms, swimming on a full stomach, and firecrackers while we are at it. Or maybe we could raise taxes enough to buy enough bubble wrap to encase our kids until they reach the age of 18.
This is a perfect example of “feel good” legislation. Looks great on a campaign flyer. “For the children…”
There is only one thing you have to remember about Mark Sanford. He is only interested in himself.
Case in point…he has farm/land, and ATV’s…and kids…therefore, this would be a pain in the butt to him. So it is the veto for this measure.
And in doing so he stands true to his principles…what is good for Mark is good for everybody.
His record is one of failure, and useless symbolism. Yet the press loves him.
Go figure.
There are a lot of bad parents out there, but it doesn’t seem possible to correct that with legislation and law enforcement.
If we could, we should start by making sure parents teach their kids to wait to have their own kids till they are married.
Folks, I’m typing this V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y for all the libertarians out there: Such laws are not meant for you wise, empowered types who take full responsibility for your children’s safety.
Such laws operate on the same principle as laws against child abuse and neglect — the principle that there are people who completely abdicate their responsibility, and THEIR children need SOMEBODY to look after them, because THEY are not empowered, liberty-infused adults. They are D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T.
And you can go on forever about how parents OUGHT to be responsible; a lot of people just are NOT going to be. So nobody should step forward to protect THEIR kids? Maybe you’re asserting that idiots who don’t take care of their kids have some sort of property rights over the kids, or some other principle that is invisible to me here. If you do… well, that doesn’t make sense, either.
Anyway, if you don’t get it, I don’t know what else to say right now.
Brad – I agree with the principle, but you have to draw the line somewhere don’t you? How far would you take the principle? What decisions are bad parental decisions but not so egregiously bad and damaging to society that the rest of us need to intervene through government?
I’ll type this slowly for you Nanny-staters. No matter how many laws, fines, taxes, rules, and bureacracy you want to impose, there will always be someone stupid enough to disregard them.
It’s amazing that you want our police out tracking down renegade ATVers when they’re dealing with increasing gang violence around the Midlands. If Billy Bob wants Lil’ Billy Bob to drive around on the ATV, who cares? If it’s not an ATV, it’ll be a motorcycle, a jet ski, a homemade gocart, a jump off the roof, a bow-and-arrow, a hunting rifle, a tractor…
Instead of creating laws, why not spend the resources on educating the public? Instead of occupying our limited police resources with Click-it-Or-Ticket and ATV abusers, why don’t we let them use the existing child endangerment laws as the case requires?
This ATV bill is very similar to the current TSA airport restrictions that are in place. A government bureacracy attempting to “solve” a very small problem.
I can bring six three ounce containers of the same liquid as long as they fit in one ziploc bag, but cannot bring one half empty 4.0 ounce shaving cream tube. Because one guy had a possible shoe bomb a couple years ago, every single person boarding a plane today has to take their shoes off and run them through the scanner. Last week, I watched as an elderly woman in a wheelchair was frisked.
And for what? I bet Bin Laden would laugh at just how much silliness he has been able to impose upon the American public with the complicity of the government.
I know.. it’s for the children… the same ones who you want to keep in failing schools… because maybe if they got educated, they wouldn’t need stupid laws to prevent their stupidity.
The thing about that, Doug, is that I didn’t seek to pass a law about ATVs — bereaved parents did. There are other things I would address first, as long as we’re setting priorities. But I can’t for the life of me understand why any sane person would say “no” to them. It doesn’t do a bit of harm in the world, and it might do somebody some good. That’s all there is to it.
As for the airport security — I’m for a national ID card. That would cut out a lot of the nonsense with security, and go a long way to solving our illegal immigrant problem. But then, I’m not afraid of Big Brother.
>> But I can’t for the life of me
>> understand why any sane person would
>> say “no” to them.
Because its bad policy to use the government as a tool to console bereaved parents. We don’t need more unenforceable laws. Every tragedy doesn’t require legislation… particularly in this case where the benefit would be very limited and the enforcement would be difficult.
Do you disagree that existing laws regarding child endangerment could be used to regulate this issue? Here’s one from the South Carolina Code of Laws that could be applied in those rare occurences where a stupid parent failed in his responsibilities:
SECTION 16-3-60. Involuntary manslaughter; “criminal negligence” defined.
With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years.
I know you don’t want facts to get in the way of an emotional issue like this one, but statistics show that the number of ATV related injuries and fatalities for under 16 drivers dropped from 1999-2003. The number of deaths in 2003 for under 16 riders was .27 for every 10,000 ATV’s.
The number of injuries for < 16 years of age per 100,000 participants was 472. Seems reasonable. Especially when you compare it to the number of injuries for other activities: Football - 2292; Basketball - 2051; Soccer - 1439; Skateboarding - 982; even Volleyball had more injuries per participant. Which of these activities do you want to legislate? Should we require each volleyball player pay to take a safety course and wear a helmet? Also, were you aware that in the typical "free market" fashion championed by us Libertarians, most of the major ATV manufacturers offer a rebate to customers who pay for and attend a safety course? Check out what happened in West Virginia when they passed a similar law two years ago. They found after an initial surge in minors taking the classes, the numbers have dropped off considerably. Why? Mainly because the classes are offered by the (wait for it....) DMV! And the DMV (being a smooth running, supremely efficient, customer oriented operation) only offers the classes during the week while school is in session.
Bereaved parents..? Please, Brad, you could certainly have come up with something better than a “close the barn door” argument.
Had this law been in effect before their children died in circumstances that bordered on child neglect and abuse (that is, they “completely abdicate[d] their [parental] responsibility”), do you really think that their kids would still be alive today? I don’t. Parents that are going to let their children drive ATVs without helmets or training are going to do that no matter how many un-enforceable laws are passed.
So, if not prevention, what would be the real purpose of the law, public vengeance, punishing already “bereaved parents” for their loss by fining them a few hundred dollars after the fact? Better to bring the full weight of the already numerous child protective laws down upon them if you want to set an example for parental responsibility rather than pass more laws that neither make the activity illegal nor discourage negligent behavior.
But oh no.., that would require a sea change in thinking: actually holding fools responsible and accountable for their personal decisions. Did anyone at Child Protective Services even contemplate bringing charges against any of the “bereaved parents” who allowed their kids to get killed in completely preventable circumstances? I’m guessing not.
So what harm is done by passing such useless legislation? Harm is done by giving “un-empowered, liberty-poor D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T adults” another excuse to expect that someone else out in the cruel world is going to hold their hands, wipe their tears, and kiss their boo-boos when they do something stupid (like negligently allowing their children to operate dangerous machinery).
I think I’m reasonably sane, and I’m not afraid of Big Brother either. However, there’s no need to grow him any bigger than he needs to be. Worthless legislation that absolves people of personal responsibility and accountability is just that, worthless, and it certainly does do harm to our society by perpetuating an air of “victimization” and needing the government to do one’s thinking for one.
If protecting children is an over-riding social need (and I think it is), then do something to actually protect them. That would be a positive contribution to society.
The governor was perfectly justified in vetoing this bad law. I hope he vetoes it again next year when the “bereaved parents” come asking for absolution. In the mean time, Child Protective Services should maybe review its procedures. If a child endangerment crime has been committed, then prosecute. A hint: they can find the perpetrators down at the State House lobbying for absolution.
Not to poke holes in the earlier posts, but listening to the debate yesterday, it seemed to me that the chief reason the veto was upheld was that the definitions section of the bill seemed to be poorly written (and by extension overly broad), so as to include backyard childrens toys. There also seemed to be some issues with definitions of what could and couldn’t be done by adults on public land, causing some confusion there. Calling this a sustain of a “Children’s ATV safety bill” and “hyperlibertarian ideology” might be oversimplifying the debate (and missing the point) somewhat…
It’s still bad legislation on its principles and its most likely practice and enforcement.