We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
No, people do NOT want to be left alone. They want someone else to take care of them and make their decisions for them.
85% of the people in this world are congenital peasants. The wish to spend the minimum amount of time possible staring at the south end of some sort of north bound cow, then clock out, head up feet up on the ottoman and seinfeld on the TV.
This is fine, it's their choice, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that because we are willing to work hard and to be free that they want to.
The vast majority of people believe that no one should use their cellphone while they are driving. Last week, at 10:30 at night, one a snow covered highway I switched over 2 lanes to pass a largish SUV that was driving erratically. Because he was futzing with his cellphone. At 65 miles an hour on a snow covered highway at night. Because HE could handle it because HE is a better driver than most people. (75% of all drivers think they're better than average. Also search on "dunning-kruger").
Most people don't want others to drive and use their cellphone, yet we constantly see people doing it. This leads to:
Even many of those who generally DO want to be left alone because they can handle it want restrictions on other people because they cannot.
This was fine when those restrictions were in the form of societal approbation, shunning and etc. Now however most people want laws and regulations that restrict all of us in all sorts of ways.
Right now we're in a position where about half of eligible voters would, depending on the specifics of the legislation, support the legalization of Marijuana. About half would not. Is that being left alone, or is it a reasonable restriction on freedom?
What percentage of the population today favors things like zoning laws or would vote to make cigarettes or alcohol illegal if they could be convinced it would "work"?
Yeah, there's folks like me who both want to be left alone and want others to be left alone, but MOST people who "just want to be left alone" don't want to leave others alone.
William O. B'Livion
more or less ok by me, so long as freedom doesn't unduly interfere with my rights and one's willing to accept the real costs of such risk.
in the motorcycle example, the emergency response cost is reasonably spread over all taxpayers, since anyone could cause or be collected into an accident.
however, someone who chooses to canoe in winter north atlantic seas and needs a coast guard rescue boat (about $1,000/hr) or a rescue helo (about $8,000) is imposing those costs on a public that does not engage in similarly risky behavior.
I don't see why I should have to pay for someone's really stupid risks.
and that someone should factor in, as a cost, the real consequences of really stupid risks: that no one should come to the rescue for free. but this isn't the case, someone always will, at someone else's expense. so the risks aren't really stupid after all. does that take away self esteem points knowing that?
Irresponsible behavior as an expression of freedom against the nanny state? Risk of death and injury to oneself and others as a positive social expression? What a cute little set of sophomoric questions. Lemme see, shall I delve into the pros and cons of the cost factor? Are the insurance costs associated with the foolish behavior fairly or unfairly distributed? If the hourly rate comes to $8,000 per hour do we say it's enough already? Bah! Behaving in a dangerously foolish, even criminally culpable manner is not about freedom. It is about being a fool and a criminal. Standards of behavior used to exist in civilized cultures. They existed for a reason. You can still read about it in books. For now.
why should anyone care if someone who is self insured, has purchased adequate liability insurance or waived/accepted risk undertakes risky behavior?
if risk of injury to self and others crosses the limits of what you believe should be allowed in "civilized cultures", and a motorcycle accident is the given (and only) example, then you also condemning the NFL, NASCAR, horse racing and dozens of other activities which are at least as dangerous as bikes. this is ridiculous.
any private risky activity not otherwise illegal should be unregulated unless it imposes disproportionate public costs. of course this rule is subject to legal/treaty, contractual or certain customary practices.
Hi again Wirraway. I don't understand your question about who might care about risky behavior. But, before you asked, I was under the impression you did. "more or less ok by me, so long as freedom doesn't unduly interfere with my rights and one's willing to accept the real costs of such risk."
I want to be left alone. To make decisions for my life using the information I have combined with the resources I have available that coincide with my conscience of what is good and what is bad.
I listened to an older This American Life radio segment on advice, those giving and those taking. The expert psychologist stated that those giving advice felt much better about themselves than the target of that advice. Giving help, especially where there is an opportunity for attention, does seem to be more about the helper than the helpee. Hence the nanny people feel good about themselves for running your life.
They only feel good because they don't follow through; they don't worry about what their help obtains. The impulse to help ought to encompass, at least a little, an obligation to discover what your help was actually good for. They might not feel so swell if they did that; if they did that maybe the help would be better.
After all, if you give advice, the advised might take your advice and act on it. If that ends up hurting them, or harming them more than it helps, you'll never know if you don't follow up (or the advised comes looking for you).
I don't understand how anybody can feel substantively edified and good about themselves by delegating "help" to any third party, whether state authority or charity, without a little due diligence into the quality of help rendered on your behalf.