From: mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets.
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:31:31 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

In article <1992Dec9.210749.2137@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
>
>These arguments always fill me with fear - fear that I am losing
>control over my own life and destiny.  You'd might as well pass a
>law that people must get 7 hours of sleep a night, or drink 8
>glasses of water a day, or not watch too much TV.  

Folks on the other side of the debate can say the same.  I am fearful
that I am losing control over my own destiny as well.  That no matter
how much effort I put into living my life responsibly, and intelligently, 
that I still wind up paying for someone who hasn't.

>To require proactive measures to guard against personal stupidity flies 
>in the face of what the legal system in a free country is supposed to do -
>protect you from *other* people's stupidity of malevolance.

I agree with you David, *if* the stupid individual is the only one affected.
But our society has been increasingly tying the fate of individuals together
since the enactment of welfare.  And it's going to get worse with the
enactment of a national health care system.

If I have to share the costs of an individuals irresponsible actions, then
a law against such actions is in-effect protecting me from *other* people.
Or don't you consider financial harm relevent?

>People keep trying, and what they end up doing is legislating
>against eccentricity, creativity, individuality, originality and
>personal judgement.

I agree, but I think the answer is to quit treating society at large as
giant risk sharing system, and let the individual be responsible for
the consequences of their actions when they willfully place themselves
in high-risk situtations, fail to follow recommended safety procedures,
are negligent, etc.  Increasingly in our society, the consequences of
ones actions, are being  shared by others. And the relationship bewteen
the action and cost is being obscured.  This is not a good thing in my
opinion - it leads to the "It's not my money so why bother" syndrome.

>I'm willing to accept a little higher insurance rates as a legitimate
>societal price for the ability to have fun.

Yes, and if our insurance systems were more "fine tuned" to allow *you*
to pay the costs when your idea of fun was dynamite bombing from a hang
glider then you could do so by adding a rider to your policy and not
affect the rates for everybody else.  The big question is would you
be willing to pay the *whole* cost of such premimums without expecting
everybody to contribute?

>But, I will not accept personal responsibility for others' stupidity
>by allowing myself to be subject to laws which prevent me from
>exercising responsibility for my own life.

Oh? And I should therefore accept personal responsibility for others' 
stupidity, laziness, lack of concern, whatever, by allowing  myself to 
be subject to laws which tax me excessively?

>If you don't want to bear your share of
>the societal costs of a vibrant society, go live in a cave somewhere.

I should bear the cost of a basic functioning society.  Items which benefit
everybody. National security, administration, infrastrucure, law enforcement,
etc.  People who need extra risk, excitement, whatever, should be willing to
get together with like minded individuals to share the risks and costs.
As long as I'm expected to pick up part of the tab, I have right to monitor
and mitigate my costs (even through legislation) if required and appropriate.
If you want freedom.... you've got to take independance too.

>You have the option to opt out.

Funny.... the IRS and my insurance companies don't quite see it that way.




-- 
Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com
Newsgroups: seattle.general