Individual Rights, and other Myths

[MXGratefulDiver]

WHAT???? They ticket adult bicyclists in the state you live, who let them do that?

The helmet manufacturers must have dropped a bundle with their lobbyists

More like the state has a huge deficit and is looking for creative ways to raise cash ... pesonally, I'd prefer a huge bake sale ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[captain]

Why did they pass the helmet law?

Why do you think, the usual propaganda about the cost of brain injured motorcyclist when I can probably count the number the state is caring for on one hand. Just another nanny state feel good law.
Right now it's the same is starting in sports, pretty soon the NFL will be playing flag football in full pads.

 

[DaleC]

It's hypocritical to complain about having to pay someone elses health care bill when, in all likelyhood, someone will wind up paying for yours.
It's hypocritical to complain about others taking unneccisary risks while at the same time justifying 29,000' overheads as mitigated risk and therefore, somehow acceptable.
It's hypocritical to avail oneself of all the benefits produced in SCUBA by the "rugged individual" and at the same time condemn them.

 

[Thalassamania]

It's hypocritical to complain about having to pay someone elses health care bill when, in all likelyhood, someone will wind up paying for yours.

Not really, as long as you do what you reasonably can to minimize yours and don't expect other to do more than you are willing to yourself

It's hypocritical to complain about others taking unneccisary risks while at the same time justifying 29,000' overheads as mitigated risk and therefore, somehow acceptable.

I'm sorry I don't know what, "29,000' overheads as mitigated risk" are, so I can not comment.

It's hypocritical to avail oneself of all the benefits produced in SCUBA by the "rugged individual" and at the same time condemn them.

I'd be interested in whom your are talking about, over the years I've had the pleasure of working or playing with many of those who produced those benefits and there are passing few whom I describe as "rugged individualists." More often they are careful, thoughtful, somewhat nerdy, exclusively buddy diver types.

 

[NAM001]

I think i have to agree with daleC's comment. If i read into it right he is saying. Watch out what you ask to be regulated because the same regulation process may come back to bite you later.

As it was a treatment comment one can only wonder what our New health care standards will develope into inorder to minimize the expence side of the thier ledger.

daleC comment
Hopefully you will not succumb to a disease or injury of your own making and hopefully your care team will not assume you can't hear and hopefully they will not talk amongst themselves about what a burden you are to the tax system

Hypocrisy? Why do you think I am hypocritical?

 

[vladimir]

your characterizations of my positions are, sadly, wide of the mark.

I apologize for mis-characterizing your positions. I thought you were comfortable with government intrusion in exchange for safety (or the perception of it). I don't know where I got that idea:

I would rather get frisked than killed by a bomb.

I take some comfort in airport security, because I DO think they help in preventing most terrorist attacks on aircraft. But comfort or not, one can't point to many security failures or downed aircraft since 9/11.

Kind of clever of the Founders to stick that "unreasonable" in there like that, wasn't it? I guess some people will always think it reaonable not to have to board an airplane with guys wearing C4 jock straps.

I certainly don't want to be responsible for losing the 4th Amendment or America, so I will endeavor to just give you a more straightforward answer. Machine scanners don't bother me. Radar doesn't bother me. I have been wanded, frisked, and patted down in airports: It didn't bother me.

 

[DaleC]

Thal, my perception of a "rugged individualist is derived from the two words rugged and individualist. Rugged meaning adaptable, able to absorb some punishment and remain operational, possessed of a certain amount of "grit". Idividualist meaning one who is comfortable going it alone when neccisary or desirable, able to act independantly, capable of standing for what one believes even if it goes against the group or conventional mores.

However, being rugged does not mean one cannot be sensitive and being an idividualist does not preclude the ability to work in groups. William Beebe, poster boy for thin, bespectacled nerdiness, strikes me as a rugged individualist from what I've read. Personally I believe that having the former traits makes one better able to respond to the needs of others (but that's just me).

What Mike seems to have done in this thread is equate "individualist" to "irresponsible". Being irresponsible is not neccisarily a character trait of the individual. Many irresponsible actions have come about as the result of group dynamics (the chinese cultural revolution coming to mind).

Why this bothers me enough to comment in the thread is two fold.

First, I truly believe that we do not foster resilience or initiative by critcizing individual effort or by insisting that everybody travel the tried and tested path. Growth is claimed by venturing into the unknown and by challenging convention. While we may want to discourage the foolish from such endevours we should not discourage the endevour itself (I believe).

Secondly, as a student of history, I find it difficult to listen to a term such as "rugged individual" denigrated in such a way. Only those who live in the vacuum of a sheltered world can afford the luxury of thinking those traits are no longer desirable. Probably I am old fashion that way as I often find my opinion to be in the minority in this regard. Sure, being able to work collaboratively is desirable but DOG help us if the ablilty to act independently upon occasion is quashed completely.

The 29,000' overhead reference is in regards to a cave dive performed by J.J. (someone I quite admire by the way). I used it as an example of how twisted the perception of unnecissary risk can become when one adopts a polarized position. Apparently some would find this risk acceptable or mitigable while an air dive to 200' unacceptable. I fail to see the difference as the risk for both is completely dependent on the approach taken by the individual. I leave the determination of which one is strictly neccisary up to someone else.

I find myself in a unique position these days as I work with people who all suffer some form of physical or cognitive disability/impairment. Yet, while I deal with the aftermath of many acute and chronic lifestyle choices I find myself rarely trying to determine who does, and does not, deserve my empathy.

Being human is a messy business and I have the humility to admit that I don't always make the best choices. I also try to have the courage to occasionally make those choices for myself.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thank you for the explanation, I enjoyed reading it and, in large part, agree, though I suspect I am slightly more "collectivist" than thee, we have a phrase (and even a hand signal) "let's buddy brain".

 

[Mike Boswell]

I apologize for mis-characterizing your positions. I thought you were comfortable with government intrusion in exchange for safety (or the perception of it). I don't know where I got that idea:

Better, but I'm afraid you still don't have it. Maybe you could understand my comments better if you weren't trying so hard to discredit them?

 

[vladimir]

Better, but I'm afraid you still don't have it. Maybe you could understand my comments better if you weren't trying so hard to discredit them?

You do understand that I was being deliberately (and, I thought, obviously) hyperbolic when I wrote this?:

suggesting that we should all be happy to allow the TSA to grope us and do an occasional body-cavity search in exchange for the warm fuzzy feeling of safety that we'd get in return?.

And, once you realize that, you do see that there is no qualitative difference between that statement and the one that's "better":

I thought you were comfortable with government intrusion in exchange for safety

But nevermind. I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further, as it seems I am certain to miss all the nuance in posts like this:

I would rather get frisked than killed by a bomb.