From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:44:17 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Dec19.193940.10433@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>In <1992Dec19.004814.23039@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>
> [ ... stuff deleted ... ]
>
>:Riding a motorcycle is different, however.  I don't think there's any way
>:in hell society should EVER pay the bills for someone who rides a motorcycle
>:without a helmet and without insurance.  If you don't have the brains to
>:do at least one of those things, then I would rather you be left to your
>:own devices where medical treatment is concerned, than pay your bills.
>
>I don't see how these differ.  I make a choice to walk in the
>woods, climb a mountain, ride a motorcycle, or race a car so I
>should take responsibility if I screw up!

I feel the difference to many folks is based on whether they engage in
a particular activity or not, and therefore are impacted by any
restrictive laws/bans someone dreams up...

In the real world (especially the current one) a middle ground is probably
where things should end up.  In the case of the original subject, nobody
has yet come up with anything to suggest that the impact on society is
above the noise.  In other words, if writing such restrictive laws as
helmet laws is intended to keep public costs down, to have any real effect
on taxes, etc., laws will have to be written to restrict/heavily modify/ban
virtually all activities with even a small element of risk.  Banning
lawyers and endless litigation (where those with the deepest pockets wins)
would save far more dollars IMO.  Society has not gotten so bad (yet) where
paramedics will check an accident victim for ability to pay, and leaving
them to rot if they lack that ability, though some hospitals do.

There is no easy answer for dealing with those without deep pockets,
but I would not like an environment where only those who have fortune
of birth, or luck in finding decent employment are to expect any help
in a tight spot.  I also do not like a society where laws are passed
willy-nilly because someone THINKS it sounds good, when no impact on
society that warrants telling someone they must purchase some overpriced
item, and in effect dress a certain way is demonstrated.  I repeat, most
of these laws have not been supported by anything that would suggest
the effect on what I pay or do not pay in taxes would even be DETECTABLE.
Unless that is forthcoming, the only motivations I can see, is someone
insisting on playing 'mom' to everybody else (I think wearing X is a
good idea, so lets force everybody to do likewise), lobbying by the
relevant equipment maker so they can pretty much charge what they want
since purchase is REQUIRED (violates the choice element of the free
market).  It seems to go with the idea I see in so many issues - legislate
hardware related laws and everything will be hunky-dory.  Why not pursue
education instead?   Anybody with a modicum of self-preservation will
take measures to reduce a REAL hazard, IF EVIDENCE CAN BE SUPPLIED THAT
DOING/WEARING X WILL SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THAT HAZARD.  Of course, that
might be hard to do if the overall hazard is negligable.  On bicycles,
for example, one might evaluate hazards differently when riding on the
street, vs riding around a park in designated bike paths.  But that
would require allowing that bane of PC-ness - a non-governmentally
imposed CHOICE!!!

How far a stretch IS it to go to requiring helmets or other safety gear
when walking downtown?  People DO get hit by cars at crosswalks, or
simply slip and fall on an icy sidewalk, and bones DO get busted or
heads cracked on occasion.  (is the rate of such injuries of the same
order as, for example, bicycling?)  The extreme and silly extrapolations
of the past ARE the sorts of laws getting proposed today.  Not only in
helmets, but guns, and other areas if one wishes to look around a bit.
We have become a society where the current trend is:  "Something not
right? Pass another law.  ANY law will do (as long as is doesn't adversly
impact MY lifestyle)..."  Someone busts their head?  Pass a helmet law.
Someone gets stabbed?  Push for another gun law (actually happened in
NYC, courtesy Mayor Dinkins).  Someone falls off a mountain?  Pass a
law banning mountain climbing by non-professionals (definition open).
How long will it be before motorcycles will be banned (except for military
and police, of course)?  Don't laugh, there has been rumblings of just
that in the not too distant past:  "I don't ride a motorcycle, therefore
nobody in their right mind should ride one.  They are DANGEROUS.  Ban
'em!! (or charge 10K per year for the license...)"

> [ ... personal example deleted ... ]

>On a related subject, I would never have considered suing
>Goodyear, Bell (helmet manufacturer), or any other supplier since
>this kind of liability would immediately drive them out of the
>racing business.  KEEP THE FUCKING LAWYERS OUT OF MY LIFE!
>
>Bill

Nicely put.  That last line has potential as a .sig ...  :-)
Wanna save public money?  Ban lawyers ...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: seattle.general