From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

I know I'm supposibly in Pat's killfile, but he has a couple 
points worth commenting on.

In article <1842@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
:
:I say lets outlaw ALL risky activity (or activity someone SAYS is high
:risk) that someone doesn't like to pay part of the costs of rescue or
:treatment.  Lets stop searching for lost hikers, rescuing skiers who
:break a leg (unless they can pay up front for hauling them off the
:slope).  In short, get in and meddle with any and all recreational
:activity that MIGHT cost the public a few cents per person more per year
:to aid those that get in a tight spot or get injured (injure themselves,
:since they wouldn't be injured if they had not chosen to engage in the
:'risky' activity).

You have a point.  I alwaus thought it extremly funny that those who
would cry about how stupid someone was, and how they cost all that
money to get rescued, never considered the cost of thier own chance
at getting in the same situation.

It's easy to pass it off, until it is needed by you (not you personally
Pat, but the public you).

:After all, *I* have to pay the costs caused by these unnecessary activites
:and I should not have to do that.  I don't engage in these activities,
:why should I pay the cost incurred by others that choose to do so?  Of
:course, any activities I might choose to engage in are automatically OK
:and proper, and should not be affected.   You should not mind giving up
:the freedom to do an activity that is deemed potentially dangerous by
:somebody, right?

I love this.  It comes right to the point.  Regulating 'someone else'
is a full time career for some.  But, ghoddess forbid, that they get
regulated themselves.

Dick, at Sequent, made a good point about how bicyclists were not
standing in line to howl about motorcycle helmet laws.

:There was a quote from the WWII era where (paraphrased) it was ok
:as long as 'they' came after other people, and when 'they' came
:after me, there was nobody left to stand with me.

Good point.  You see this everywhere.  People viting for measure 9
in Oregon because they aren't gay, voting for laws against the keeping
of exotic animals because a dalmation is considered exotic enough for them,
voting for or against abortion laws, though they will *never* have to
bear a child.  

:The point (conveniently missed by many advocates) is not reqiring
:helmets on bicycles or not.  It might be a good idea *IF* it can
:be shown to be EXTREMELY risky to not wear one (which has NOT been
:done).  

Actually it's not risky to ride unhelmeted, just risky to have one's
head strike a hard surface.  *That* is risky.  

:Given enough
:time, if this trend is not stopped, there will be precious little one
:can do for the sake of pure pleasure, without having to armor up with
:hundreds of dollars in 'safety' gear.  

Actually if the safety gear actually makes the activity safer, and 
lessens the chance of injury or death, it should be worn, regardless 
of the existance of a law or not.

:And the politicians that propose
:these idiotic laws consistantly return to office, usually by promising
:virtually everything for nothing to the populace, because the price will
:be carried by 'the other fellow'.

You got it.  

"Don't worry, we'll only tax the rich, this law will only be enforced
against the other guy, we only go after them, not you."

Divide and conquer.  Recall the Republican convention for a shining
example of that particular ploy.

:BTW - I have yet to see what the stats are on the presumably horrendous
:expense and risk involved regarding helmets on bicycles. 

Actually such stats do exist (sorry but I cannot produce them).  many
children and young adults are injured every year in bicycle accidents.
many of those injuries are head injuries.  Whether or not people actually
get injured, though, is irrellevant to the existance of a *law*.

:I cannot
:help wonder how loudly these types would howl if the law were passed
:which would impact/prevent THEIR favorite activity, because sombody
:thinks its 'too risky'... I know, THAT'S DIFFERENT ...

Good point and pass the earmuffs.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.

Newsgroups: seattle.general