Would Government Regulation of Diving Be So Bad?

[dweeb]

- after all - you know - divers can steal the most important secrets of the party and country.

And they did. We got a lot of cold war intel by tapping phone cables laid across the bottom of harbors in Warsaw-Pact nations.

 

[dweeb]

Kids bicycle helmets are required by law....
Motorcycle helmets....
Seatbelt laws...
Smoking...
Drinking...

Of these only seatbelt laws are nationally universal.
You also overlook things like secondhand smoke, and the harm to others resulting from drunken (mis)judgment.

Children are a special case. That's the interesting part about PADI's foray into preteens and younger children. Almost every recreational activity that young children engage in has its horror stories about the interpretation of child endangerment laws by "It Takes A Village" types in child protection departments. Diving is due for a few.

 

[dweeb]

I don't recall anyone saying that the government couldn't. A lot of people hoping that the govenrment doesn't, though.

It's been said. Look at the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.

 

[Boatlawyer]

Given the high degree of learned helplessness in our society, a lot of people would probably be afraid to drive at all were it not for the government giving them a card that tells them, in conflict with any empirical observation, that they are competent.

Amen, and pass the ammunition. This discussion highlights some basic philosophical differences about the role of government in society. The most interesting to me, is the one hinted at by Dweeb. Should gov't. sanction lessen our own abilities/need to assess risk? Hard core libertariarians (sounds like a lot of posters to this thread) say no, let nature's law (Darwin) do its job.

As long as risks are apparent and foreseeable, it is up to the individual to assess the risk and plan for it. In securities law this is known as a "Disclosure regime, and results in laws designed to inform rather than regulate securities offerings.

A contrary theory, "Merit Regime" is one is which government evaluates and regulates the risk (in securities, the investment).

In recreational diving, there are marketing forces hard at work which highlight the adventure of diving and downplay the risk. To some, this has resulted in poor diving practices observed in various incidents. It remains unclear to me whether proper practices were taught and disregarded or simply not addressed. The empirical evidence, relatively low numbers of diving accidents and fatalities, suggests the risk of diving is managed and manageable with the systems in place.

 

[dweeb]

Because you shouldn't have to have the government's permission to teach someone something they want to learn as a recreational activity. If you were teaching commercial divers that would be (and is) a different matter.

Why is it different? Just because there's money involved?
No one NEEDS to be a commercial diver any more thant they NEED to be a recreational one, in contrast to the sudden need to have one's appendix removed.

 

[dweeb]

well, then at least make me assistant sub-minister to the under-secretary of training (catering division)

Tell you what, Pinky - when I become king-god-emperor of diving, you can be my lord high grand inquisitor.

 

[dweeb]

how much worse can it get before the proverbial brown stuff hits the proverbial fan?

Depends on which party is in power.
A true conservative will never regulate diving.
A true liberal can't wait to do so.
Then there are all those in between.

 

[dweeb]

Even those just relate to tanks that are to be transported.....

across state lines or on federal roads.

 

[TCDiver1]

Andy, i think dweeb loves you. You better watch out!

 

[dweeb]

Please refrain from making personal attacks (ad hominem arguments) in this thread. thanks.

To whom are you speaking?

Un petite moi?