Would Government Regulation of Diving Be So Bad?

[H2Andy]

Careful, dweeb - I know from my own experience you may have touched a nerve here..... :11::11:

yes, it's called a personal attack and should not be made

the fact that i am a lawyer bears no relevance to my arguments.

please address my arguments on their merit.

say, snow... you never answered my question, even though
i answered yours

 

[eponym]

What if "self-policing" has failed? The training standards are compromised, some might argue, new divers are at their unsafest level ever, more and more instructors are teaching without a basic understanding themselves. Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training.

As a slight tangent, have you considered that the U.S. government might propose to regulate recreational diving more closely for national security's sake, rather than from a personal safety argument?

I believe new open water certifications are now being reported to the state security apparatus in this country (USA). Given some of the actions taken by its executive branch in the past three years, it doesn't seem to me impossible that threats to internal security, real or imagined, might be used by the government to justify regulation of diving in areas considered "sensitive." That could include any port, no matter its size; any body of water that connects to a public water source; and for that matter any body of water frequented by the public, on the assumption that simple carnage is enough reason for the "evil ones" to strike.

Likely? I'd say not extremely likely. But some very unlikely events have transpired lately . . .

-Bryan

 

[damsel]

Then you're not thinking like a true liberal driven by principle; you're thinking like an opportunist driven by whether your own ox is being gored. The real test of your ideological mettle is your willingness to apply principles consistently even when it conflicts with your personal self interest. Any logical case for socialized healthcare or welfare is directly extendable to diving regulation.

Ah, the fun of being baited on message boards. I responded half as a joke, at the sheer silliness of your trying to fit people into ideological boxes like 'true liberal' and 'true conservative', when today the labels are all but meaningless. (when was the last time you ever saw a 'conservative' try to actually CONSERVE anything? hello, clearcutting of forests and drilling in wildlife preserves...)
But I'll bite.

What is your personal definition, pray tell, of 'true liberal'? You say that, by dint of my calling myself a 'liberal', that I should wholeheartedly agree with government intervention in diving, since, obviously, as a liberal, I believe that the government can fix everything. Explain how an issue like, say, abortion would fit into your little political matrix. Traditionally speaking, most 'true liberals' oppose government restrictions on abortion, believing that the government has no say in a woman's reproductive decisions. Most 'true conservatives' want abortion outlawed. This would seem to conflict with your assertations that liberals always desire increaced government involvement with any issue. (You could, and well may, argue that 'true liberals' should blindly adhere to the 'all government is good government' ethos, and that those liberals who are for women's reproductive rights are somehow 'bad liberals'. This is nothing more than a perversion of the original meaning of 'liberal', which was meant to connote a progressive, tolerant mindset open to change and free from the intrusions of dogma. All this aside, where have you been, exactly? Political process these days hardly involves 'principles'.)

Being politically progressive doesn't necessarily mean favouring progressively increacing government controls on every aspect of life. I don't need my 'ideological mettle' tested, thank you. I am quite capable of thinking for myself and do not require a fixed dogma to inform my political decisions. I consider myself a liberal in the traditional sense, and claim the label proudly, despite the efforts of many in today's (American) political climate to pervert the meaning of the word and turn it into an insult to character.

Which leads us to the corollary to Andy's question - if you've commented here, please tell us whether you personally might benefit from the regulation under discussion. Let's face it, there will be advantage to be culled from such a situation.

I would not personally benefit from the regulation under discussion. It is possible that such regulation would affect me negatively, as I work in the industry, but any effects are likely to be small, as I do not work in the United States. What advantages do you think are likely to be culled, however, and by whom, exactly? Lobbyists, I suppose, but that's about it. Still, you got your full disclosure from me. There you go.

 

[Snowbear]

yes, it's called a personal attack and should not be made

Better start cleaning up the board, then - I've seen more than me and dweeb callin' you a lawyer....

say, snow... you never answered my question, even though
i answered yours

OK then...

do you think the agencies are doing a god job training divers?

No, I don't think any agency or the folks who represent those agencies are gods at training divers. I also don't think the same folks given the power of a government regulatory position would do any better.

if not, what would you suggest be done?

I've always been an advocate of personal responsibility. In my OW class, I was shown the basic skills to submerge and not kak myself during the experience. Was it complete training that would ready me for a solo, deco, 5000' penetration cave dive? Of course not! But with that training, it was up to me to continue building my skills. Will I ever meet my own standards for excellence? Not likely. But I sure as bleep don't want some bleepin' beaurocrap dictating where, how and with whom I choose to train and dive and what equipment I choose to take with me or leave in the car.

The federal government's meddling in the personal recreational and daily living activities of the citizens it has power over is criminal. IMirreleventO of course

 

[H2Andy]

Better start cleaning up the board, then - I've seen more than me and dweeb callin' you a lawyer.... OK then...

lol, nothing wrong with that. i am proud to be called a lawyer.

you're missing the point, but that's ok

 

[H2Andy]

if not, what would you suggest be done?

I've always been an advocate of personal responsibility. In my OW class, I was shown the basic skills to submerge and not kak myself during the experience. Was it complete training that would ready me for a solo, deco, 5000' penetration cave dive? Of course not! But with that training, it was up to me to continue building my skills. Will I ever meet my own standards for excellence? Not likely. But I sure as bleep don't want some bleepin' beaurocrap dictating where, how and with whom I choose to train and dive and what equipment I choose to take with me or leave in the car.

The federal government's meddling in the personal recreational and daily living activities of the citizens it has power over is criminal. IMirreleventO of course

ok... you tell me what you dont' want done, but you don't
answer the question.

what is your proposed alternative to government intervention in order to get the agencies to train divers and instructors better?

 

[Boatlawyer]

[QUOTEwhat is your proposed alternative to government intervention in order to get the agencies to train divers and instructors better?[/QUOTE]

Andy, your question is loaded as they say, like asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet" or "were you lying then or are you lying now?"

Your premise is that agencies need to train divers and instructors better, and I think Snowbear disagrees with that premise as do a number of other posters.

I have not seen evidence that a) there are significant numbers of divers posing a threat to themselves and others and b) even if there were, there is similarly no evidence that training, or rather the lack thereof, is the source of the problem.

In the absence of support for your premise, it is difficult to justify governmental intervention.

 

[H2Andy]

sort of... the context is set up by Snow and myself's series of
posts in this thread. at this point, my statement was based on a prior question to Snow, IF you think the agencies are not doing a good job, what is your solution other than gov. intervention?

i understood Snow to say that the agencies were not doing a good job.

thus, my question, so what is your solution since you oppose gov. intervention?

it seems that many posters feel the agencies are botching it,
but they don't like gov. to step in. so i was following up,
what then, if not uncle sam?

 

[michaelp68]

sort of... the context is set up by Snow and myself's series of
posts in this thread. at this point, my statement was based on a prior question to Snow, IF you think the agencies are not doing a good job, what is your solution other than gov. intervention?

i understood Snow to say that the agencies were not doing a good job.

thus, my question, so what is your solution since you oppose gov. intervention?

it seems that many posters feel the agencies are botching it,
but they don't like gov. to step in. so i was following up,
what then, if not uncle sam?

Seems like you're asking a good question. What's the solution to bringing about better training...?

Michael

 

[Boatlawyer]

[QUOTEit seems that many posters feel the agencies are botching it, but they don't like gov. to step in. so i was following up, what then, if not uncle sam?[/QUOTE]

Okay. The closest to that was where he said they weren't the "gods" of training.

But, assuming there is an arguable need for some level of government involvement. If not governmental intrusion into the actual business of dive training, then how about enforcing disclosure of the risks of diving,* with civil remedies for failure to do so. This transfers the expense of enforcement away from goverment and provides a financial incentive for citizens to enforce the statute. The civil enforcement as to the level of training already exists, as I mentioned earlier, by way of negligence lawsuits.

Still not sure that would be a significant improvement over agencies self-policing.

*this reflects my own opinion that the realities of diving are often overshadowed by zealous dive operators touting the "fun" of learning to dive.