> >- some people need to be protected from themselves, unfortunately. > Mark Wrote: > 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 > > Well, Mark, you make a valid point. I was looking at it from a little bit of a different angle, though. The laws are there to protect everyone, not just "experienced" Kayakers (or other water sports) making calculated decisions. Some folks just flat out don't know any better. For example, last year, the teenage daughter of a friend of mine and her boyfriend went to one of the Sounds in North Carolina to visit his uncle for the weekend. The uncle had a 2 person kayak that he "fiddled" with. The two teens took it out for a ride. Tide came in - water turned rough - they were over a mile from shore - not even a PFD in the boat (in fact, they carried nothing but two paddles). They capsized, and had no clue how to get back in. Eventually, he drowned (took almost a week to find his body). She survived. She managed to get to a duck blind and stayed there for two days until she was rescued. My wife and I prayed with her parents for three days, not knowing if she were dead or alive. Here it comes...... I SURE WISH A MARINE SAFETY OFFICER HAD OF SEMI "HARRASSED" THEM AND ESCORTED THEM BACK TO SHORE OR SCARED THEM TO THE POINT THAT THEY WENT BACK THEMSELVES. My point is that many, many, many people don't fully understand the risks and don't comprehend the choice that they are making. It's those people who need protection from themselves, not you or I who understand the risks (well, I'm still a rookie, so I'm still studying the risks) , and carefully make our decisions based on many, many factors - the thrill of danger included. But, in your scenario, I can't argue your points. But in my scenario, I'll debate all day long. Guess that means that it's scenario dependant, which really makes writing the law difficult....ie: how do you identify the "dummies" who need protection, and wouldn't that be discriminatory? I think they found an answer when they settled on having to have a PFD on board, but left it to you whether or not you decide to put it on. Glad I'm not a politician trying to rewrite that law. :-) Rick (the one from Va.) *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:17 PDT