People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

Con says, "the role of the state is to stop us doing stupid things. It cannot be safe, so it must be stupid." If true, then every explorer, entrepreneur, policeman, fireman, participant in a risky occupation, or athlete in a risky sport is stupid. He says that if an activity cannot be done safely it ought to be banned. That model permeates his side of the debate.My model of behavior is that it is reasonable to take risks appropriate to the rewards. What is "appropriate" depends upon the individual's assessment of the risk and the individual's assessment of the rewards. There is a role for government when the public is potentially put at risk, but not when the risk is personal. And what if a person wrongly assesses risks and rewards? It's not up to government to make that judgement, so long as only the individual is at risk. 1. Restrictions on dangerous choices are unjustPro claims that the government can administer tests to determine who is qualified to undertake risks and who is not. Education would be required as preface to the testing, so that the process of gaining expertise. So if you want to skateboard or start a business, you start by getting a proper education then are certified by passing a government test. this is unjust because it does not take into account an individual's ability to assess situations and stay within one's limits. Your parents know our character and accordingly what you can do safely. The government can only set a passing grade and mark you unqualified if you are one point below that. It is also unjust because it does not take into account how important it is to you to skateboard or start a business. If you fail the test by a few points or even more than a few points, it is unjust to deny you the right to do as choose based upon someone else's belief that you are stupid to accept risk. 2. Progress depends upon taking riskI used fishing as an example of a risky occupation. It is inherently risky, because fisherman are subject to the uncertain forces of nature. But we need fishermen. Con responds that we probably have too many fishermen, due to stories of overfishing. Con's premise is that if an occupation is inherently risky, it must be banned. He considers only risks, not rewards. So it isn't a question of whether we might get by with fewer fishermen, a issue is getting rid of the entire endeavor of fishing. Of course, my example was representative of the entire spectrum of risky occupations: timbering, police, farming, entrepreneurship, and so forth.Pro argues that things can be done to reduce risk. Sure, but the occupations cited are inherently risky and Con claims that everything that cannot be made safe must be abandoned. That follows from his premise that risk taking is stupid. I clam it is perfectly reasonable to take risks in view of rewards. One reason is that risk is needed for progress in society. Pro argued that risk can be eliminated by requiring education, followed by passing a government test. That forbids participating in any new activity identified as risky because there are no educational programs for activities never practiced, nor can there be a test for expertise. Progress cannot be made without new activities, some of which entail risk. 3. Government enforces ideology through the guise of risk controlCon cites a calculation that smoking causes 18% of all deaths. There is no doubt that smoking is bad for health. However, if the government banned smoking, those people would not live forever. The worst of heavy smokers would have a life expectancy increased by 8.8 years compared to non-smokers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Less smoking is proportionately less dangerous. However, we don't know if smokers denied cigarettes would adopt some other risky behavior, like eating too much. The cited statistics make clear that obesity and lack of exercise are also dangerous behaviors. So government must intervene again to ensure that every person behaves in accordance with the ideological principle that avoiding risk is the most import thing.Are people wise to reduce their life expectancy by smoking? I say it is up to them. The risks are well known. It's up to them to decide.4. Government restrictions on choice are unneeded and ineffectiveThe cited statistics show that only 4% of deaths are due to injury. Roughly half of those are traffic deaths, which are already subject to government licensing and testing. Of the 2% remaining, we don't know how many are do accidents that are not preventable (natural disasters, lightning strikes) or are already controlled by government (industrial accidents, airplane crashes, medical malpractice). We don't know the exact numbers, but the deaths from injuries due to unsupervised dangerous decisions must be well below 1%. This affirms my commonsense assertion that people are naturally concerned about their own safety, and it refutes Con's notion that most people are stupid and need parent-like supervision Con 1. Not everyone is an expertThe point of my anecdote about kids surfing into rocks is that what they were doing was in fact safe. It was obvious they were expects, and there parents knew it. Con attributed it to luck and deemed in unsafe. Take those same kids and put them on bicycles in New York City and they would be in serious danger. City kids can navigate the streets, but best stay away from ocean surf.Con compares government to responsible parenting. Most parents know the capabilities of their children so they can judge. Government cannot possibly have that knowledge. Therefore the judgements of government are unfair. When public safety is involved, we tolerate the unfairness to favor the public. When the individual is only risking himself, there is no grounds for the unfairness.Con claimed that objective tests of expertise exist for every dangerous activity. Parental judgement are subjective, not objective. Stunt coordinators and agents select stuntmen based upon subjective, not objective, criteria. Some stuntmen attend school, some do not. Only Jackie Chan decides what he can do. Employers of fishermen, timbermen, and farmers make subjective choices. Nothing prevents individuals from, say, farming, on their own. Entrepreneurs are almost entirely self-selected. Con 2. Role of StateCon claimed that my argument was "democracy is not always fair." That's not it. Con's premise is that taking risk is stupid. Imposing that value on everyone is inherently unfair. Beyond that, government must also decide what is dangerous, what it takes to qualify for taking risk, and whether in fact the activity should be prohibited altogether. All will be determined by bureaucracy, not by vote of the population. Bureaucrats are by nature both ideological and risk averse. Con never responded to this argument. He implicitly agreed by assuming that everyone enforcing his concept would agree with his ideology that taking risk is stupid.SummaryI have no problem with government taking steps to protect public safety.and labeling risks. It's debatable how much of that is worthwhile. Children are subject to parental judgment because children lack experience and knowledge.The debate is about whether people shave a right to grow up and make dangerous choices for themselves. It's self-evident that they have the right to do so, and unfair to deny that right. The public will never be allowed to decide what is safe; it will be done by ideological bureaucrats who are risk averse. People are naturally cautious, and the statistics bear that out. Some people take foolish risks, but those people are likely to act foolishly regardless of government rules.Society benefits substantially from people who make dangerous decisions. We need every explorers, entrepreneurs, policeman, fireman, fishermen, timbermen, and farmers. All those pursuits are inherently dangerous. We even benefit from Jackie Chan and those who take risks for the sake of thrills. They teach us what is possible.