Re: [Paddlewise] Safety, Ads, & PFDs

>
> The problem with this argument, and it's a very big problem, is that once
an
> accident or injury occurs due to someone's wilfully careless behavior, the
> injured person immediately (and rightfully) expects someone else to come
to
> his/her rescue

I had attempted to factor out the cost to others in my hypothetical.  Maybe
that's just not possible, in a real world sense.  But I was trying to get to
the bottom of the question.  Someone said that there are people who just
need to be protected from themselves.  I disagree that this is a legitimate
*government* (as opposed to family, insurance company, whatever) interest.
So I asked: what if my risky behavior could not result in any financial
consequences to *anyone* else?  Suppose: I kayak without a PFD, but I pay a
motor yacht with full rescue crew and gear to stay within 100 yards of me.
I have no dependents.  I have plenty of money to pay for any consequence of
my conduct.  Does the government then have the right to tell me that I can't
do something because *I might injurre or kill myself*?  To me, that's just
not a legitimate role of government.

I acknowledged in an earlier post -- I mentioned the motorcycle helmet
debate -- that I know of no good argument against the "social cost
rationale" for regulating risky behavior.  It's an issue, and a serious one,
IMO.  The only argument I know of to counter it -- and I think it needs to
be taken very seriously -- is the "slippery slope" argument: once we let
government control our behavior on the basis that it might end up imposing a
social cost, then almost anything is subject to regulation or restriction or
elimination.  Eating red meat is more riskyt than eating vegetables, no?
Kayaking may just be too risky even to be allowed at all.  Motorcycles
should just be banned (if you think this is a silly point, ask yourself:
when was the last time you saw one of those three-wheel ORV things? ).  Etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

To me, a safe but sanitized society is not what I want.  Hell, I didn't even
like it when Giuliani (Mayor of NYC) "cleaned up" Times Square.  I never
indulged the seediness of the place, but somehow I took comfort in it being
there, just knowing that in this country people have the freedom to be seedy
if they like.  But I digress.  Again: is the issue *just* one of social
costs?  Is that really the only valid basis for regulating risky conduct?
Or is there a "higher" interest, residing with the government, in
"protecting people from their own stupidity"?  That's the question I was
posing, so as to try to get to the real heart of this.

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/
***************************************************************************