From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:18:16 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Dec13.223335.23667@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>Dick Winningstad has got a point (never mind some of the reasoning).
>It would be possible--just as we now try to prevent people from buying
>cocaine or jumping off bridges--for the state to ratchet things up
>considerably.  Possible, though not as ineluctable as some people
>insist.
>
>What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
>some of the costs.  (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others
>in groceries, but I'm willing to pay those costs because I hope they
>protect me and mine.)  These costs stem from higher insurance rates
>as well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.  The unhelmeted
>motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or being maimed for
>life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his estate will sue my com-
>pany.
>
>What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?
>

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).

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?

It is SOOOO EASY to regulate and pass laws that impact on the freedom
of others, and require others to do things you don't mind doing.
I notice that is a characteristic that is commonplace among those
who advocate such laws - the law/regulation/whatever is perfectly
acceptable as long as it doesn't adversly impact what THEY wish
to do.  Our freedoms are being whittled away a bit at a time.  It
takes longer, but the end result is the same:  A parental government
playing 'Mom'.  Except if one disagrees, this 'Mom' is perfectly
happy to come along with guns to 'protect you from yourself'.

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.

Lets regulate out of existance any pleasurable activity that I or
my cronies don't personally agree with or participate in, for the
greater good of society, of course.

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).  The point is that there is a trend among the PC crowd to
regulate EVERYTHING, based on the idea that the STATE knows best,
and that for the 'good of society' (whatever THAT is) people need
to be protected from themselves.  I recall the 'reducto ad absurdium'
argument when the issue was motorcycle helmets was, among others,
that bicycle helmets would be next.  Not so absurd now.  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.  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'.

BTW - I have yet to see what the stats are on the presumably horrendous
expense and risk involved regarding helmets on bicycles. It sounds
awfully like someone said that it SHOULD be very hazardous, so lets
pass a law to protect everybody, just in case...

All I have seen are a bunch of meddling do-gooder big government types
defend this creeping 'protection against onself' lets-pass-another-law
mainly on the basis that it MIGHT cost them one or two cents more in
taxes to deal with any injuries if the law isn't passed.  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 ...

What is it that gets these people off so much meddling in other people's
lives?  Is it that they cannot enjoy life, and when seeing someone else
doing so, got to get in there and screw it up for them, too?   I have
always wondered why a dictator likes being one when everyone hates their
guts, and are doing their best to off them?  I suspect the reason might
be somewhat like the above...  They are miserable, and aren't even a
bit happy unless they make others miserable, too...  Isn't that what
power is about?  The 'joy' of forcing your desires on others, preferably
against their will?  The idea of 'individualism' seems to be getting
VERY unfashionable (or is it doubleplusungood) these days...
-- 
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,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc