>- some people need to be protected from themselves, unfortunately. I can't resist asking: why? Apart from the issue of the family and dependents of such a person (which I have already acknowledged *is* a legit issue, IMO), why does the government have a valid interest in protecting me from myself? Why is that the government's business? Let's say I don't have any children or dependents. I don't have any debt that's not covered by my current assets. No one will suffer financial loss at my death. Why is it anyone's business other than mine if I want to take personal risks, like kayaking, rock climbing, hang gliding, etc.? Even if I decide to do these things in novel ways, that only I like, and that are more risky (say, without a PFD)? (The issue of the interest of an insurance company, BTW, apart from not being a valid *government* interest, is easily dealt with by providing that certain things invalidate the coverage -- like paddling a kayak without a PFD.) I truly have a hard time understanding what reasoning it is that leads to the conclusion that the government has a legitimate right to protect people from themselves (as opposed to protecting *other* people). 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/ ***************************************************************************Received on Thu Sep 07 2000 - 10:50:29 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:31 PDT