Mark wrote: snip > Just boat > operators, and just (mainly) for their own protection. I promised myself that I was going to stay out of this one, I really did. I rarely get too fired up about subjects like this and usually try to let them slide by like water off a duck's back, but Mark's line about licensing people for their own protection finally jerked the wrong string. (no offense to Mark - say, what's that line from Henry VI? (Part 2 I believe...) <rant on> I don't need anybody to protect me when I'm in my kayak or in other craft (or anywhere else for that matter). I'm quite capable of that myself, thank-you. And I'm intelligent enough to know that there are certain things that I need to learn, and skills to develop, in order to protect myself. I don't want or need some nameless, faceless bureaucrat making regulations about what I need to do in order to be safe. What's the deal here? What's responsible for this attitude that responsibility for ensuring that its citizens are responsible for themselves is the duty of government - doesn't this strike you as just a bit ludicrous? Isn't responsibility what the whole issue is really about anyway? Let me toss out a little thought here - you cannot write legislation which will ensure that citizens behave in an ordered, responsible fashion. You can write legislation which makes it illegal for citizens to not comply and you can write legislation which will tax those citizens who comply with its requirements, but you cannot write legislation which will prohibit stupidity or ignorance. You can write legislation requiring education, but you cannot force people to employ that which they have been required to learn by rote in order to acquire "authority" from the state. What's the purpose of this (theoretically) proposed licensing? Along with canoeing and kayaking what else should we license? Bicycling to be certain - after all it's quite dangerous on the roads, oh, and rock-climbers should definitely be licensed - those folks have all kinds of opportunities to hurt themselves, how about skateboarders and roller-bladers - they're always ending up in hospital emergency rooms....(ad infinitum, ad absurdum) Government has a place in society, in that I'm a firm believer (check my email address if you don't believe me<grin>, but I'm also a firm believer in guarding very carefully our rights as individuals. It's a good thing this kind of licensing isn't a reality yet... <rant off> Dave Seng Juneau, Alaska (almost feeling the need for a little gratuitous law-breaking just to break free from the very idea of such stifling oppression) *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
from Dave Seng: [snip] > , but Mark's line about licensing > people for their own protection finally jerked the wrong string. (no offense > to Mark - say, what's that line from Henry VI? (Part 2 I believe...) Um. . . how about: "There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny; the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer." Yeah, that must be the one you were thinking of. . . . when you wrote: > I don't need anybody to protect me when I'm in my kayak or in other craft I realize now that my words were ill-chosen. Perhaps I should have said: the type of licensing I am contemplating (and still not advocating) might be to protect intelligent people from the societal cost of the acts of stupid people. And, in another sense, implementation of *reasonable* licensing now, with the support of the boating community, might help pre-empt the adoption of ever stricter rules by other of the stupid people themselves. . . Kind of like the gun industry supporting *some* level of regulation, so as to avoid an even greater enemy. [snip much eloquence] >What's the deal here? What's > responsible for this attitude that responsibility for ensuring that its > citizens are responsible for themselves is the duty of government - doesn't > this strike you as just a bit ludicrous? Said that way, yes. I have spent most of my adult life thinking of myself as a libertarian. I used to ride my motorcycle in rallies opposing helmet laws. The idea of a "paternalistic" government "looking after us" horrifies me, if for no other reason than because it will contribute to the decline of individual responsibility and the growth of a whining, pathetic populace with a sense of "entitlement". I certainly don't like the idea of actually *contributing* to this disgusting process. As I said in the beginning of this thread, I have always opposed government regulations that are intended to protect me from myself. But I just see so many fools on the water, and I fear what will happen if we leave the rest of the world to their own devices. I simply wonder if we shouldn't be thinking of some way to reduce the level of stupidity out there on the water, as a way to protect our own freedoms to enjoy the water. . . Or something like that. Anyway, I really enjoyed your post, Dave. Nicely put. Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:15 PDT