People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

Perhaps at the moment of making a dangerous choice, a voice from an all-seeing power will issue a profound, "I don't think so." That would be good. That isn't what happens. Instead, a government bureaucrat, immune to risk of job loss or failure, will decide what is too risky for you. Your freedom of choice will be curtailed by someone who doesn't know you, the risks you face, or the rewards you hope for in return for taking the risk. The deal is the same as slavery: you are relieved of the burden of decision making in return for, at best, a meager, supervised existence.1. Restrictions on dangerous choices are unjustIf there is no right to make a dangerous choice, then a government agency must decide was is dangerous and who can receive the privilege of accepting risk. Learning to ski, ride a bicycle, skateboard, or surf are inherently risky. After becoming an expert, the risk drops. How will the bureaucracy decide whether you are one of the people who can learn without injury or one who is likely to have the enterprise terminated by serious injury? The best that a bureaucracy can do is to make a judgement based upon statistics of some kind. Such judgements depend upon statistics, so they are inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied based upon the screening criteria.Moreover,, judgement ought to be based upon risk and reward. Bureaucracy is poor at assessing risk, but totally unqualified to judge a person's reward. If a person is not very interested in skiing, then denying that person the privilege of skiing is of little consequence. However,, if a person loves to ski , a risky undertaking, then denying the privilege is a major penalty. Pursuit of happiness is a fundamental self-evident right. If what makes a person happy has risk, then denial is violation of that right.Informing someone of the risk is not a denial of the right. So it's fair enough to require various cautions and warning labels, so long as the ultimate choice is left with the individual. It's also fair to prohibit risks that endanger others. It's one thing to perform risky maneuvers in an aircraft over the ocean, another thing to perform over a city.2. Progress depends upon taking riskThere are many types of risk. The most dangerous occupation in the United States is fishing, and timbering and farming also pose significant risks compared to the average occupations. Starting a business poses a significant risk of failure and financial loss. Launching new products risks not only the financial success of the company investors, but the jobs of they employees. However, society needs risk taking for progress. Developing a new pharmaceutical typically costs $300 million to $600 million, and the drug often enough proves ineffective."In a recent survey of over 630 working professionals conducted by Caliper, a Princeton-based human resources consulting firm, over 7 out of 10 people feel that taking risks is more important to success than avoiding mistakes. ... People in high-level positions—those who are C-level and Vice Presidents—stressed the importance of taking risks much stronger than those in Administrative or Managerial positions." http://www.jobbankusa.com...The right to take risks derives from the individual's right to do what is best for himself, and at the same time it benefits society. The rest of us get the fish, timber, farm products, innovative consumer products, and new pharmaceuticals -- all obtained at significant risk to individuals. Just having a process for granting the privilege of taking risk causes significant harm to society because it wastes money supporting bureaucrats to make judgements, it deters entrepreneurial people who cannot cope with the bureaucracy, and it slows the advent of new enterprise by the government processing time. All those disadvantage would accrue even if bureaucrats were correct at assessing risk, which of course they are not. Only the individual is qualified to assess the risks and rewards.The right to take significant risks is fundamental to human freedom. The burden should be on those who want to restrict freedom.3. Government enforces ideology through the guise of risk controlSmoking cigarettes poses a significant health risk to the smoker. It is a good example because it poses very little risk to others. People who smoke die younger than those who do not smoke. The effect on health system costs has been the subject of four think-tank studies. All the studies show that the costs are a wash. The costs of treating smoking caused illness is offset by the savings in not treating all the illnesses which one is likely to get by living older. Those opposed to smoking ignore the health savings from shortened lives, assuming that people who lived longer would have no health expenses whatsoever. A Dutch study reported this year that, "Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000." http://voicesweb.org...Studies of second hand smoke show only a slight effect, and that is for people living in a household with a smoker. http://www.nycclash.com... In any case, entering a private establishment that permits smoking is a matter of personal choice. Modern air filtering technology also makes it practical to purify the air for non-smokers to purity greater than the outdoor air. Smoking is an example of how ideology masquerades as forbidding a dangerous choice. Most things that people do have both advantages and disadvantages. Getting out of bed and going down stairs to begin your day has the risks falling on the stairway. The risks are real and quantifiable. A 2005 Report in the U.K. emphasized the hazard, quoting"“To fall down stairs is not only to fall off a cliff, but to fall on rocks below, for the nosings of steps presents a succession of sharp edges.” http://www.hse.gov.uk... It went on to report that most such accidents occur in the home, and cite statistics of more than 500 accidents on stairs. If it is not your right to assess the risk and decide if it is significant, the government can make the trade off for you. Perhaps a license should be required, or special safety equipment. If the government in some locality wants to keep real estate prices high to keep out poor people, the mechanism is available to ban two-story houses on the grounds the risk is too high.Cases can easily made against planes or automobiles, or bicycles or walking. In each case the hazards can be demonstrated with solid statistics, but the benefits are amorphous and non-specific. The government can ban or discourage anything it wants to. As with cigarettes, they point only to the hazards and dismiss benefits as minor and ephemeral.What greater risk could there be than the risk of losing one's immortal soul? A government-imposed regimen of prayer. and ceremonies may, in the opinion of government, reduce that risk. Surely, an individual cannot chose to take so great a risk. The point is that principle of having to beg for privileges is a means for government to control the most minute aspects of life for the purpose of having you avoid a dangerous choice. Disallowing dangerous choices is a form of slavery, contrary to the necessary risk taking that individuals and society need for progress, and it has no practical bounds on which decisions are controlled. All errant thought is, to the ruling powers, dangerous.The resolution is affirmed.