On Oct 29, 2004, at 12:00 PM, Richard Ozer wrote:
> Low blow... not deserved.
>
Perhaps not, and I don't mean to foment anger. I do, however, feel
appalled by the proposition that people should be left to die if they
make a careless mistake (which is, of course, underlying notion of the
Darwin award).
> The point Richard is trying to make is that we need to return to a
> culture
> of "personal responsibility." This is a huge and bloated philosophical
> topic that can be applied to everything from the CDPR to our foreign
> oil
> dependence. It really has nothing to do with humanity and empathy. I
> feel
> sorry for anyone who needs an emergency airlift and I would not
> hesitate to
> pay fees or taxes that insure the availability of such services.
> However,
> if my life was saved by an emergency airlift, I would be more than
> willing
> to pay for the privelege, or have purchased an insurance policy, or
> have to
> do some kind of community service in exchange (if I didn't have the
> money).
> I'm sure that anyone else who was rescued in such a manner would agree.
>
Naturally I agree with this argument, as would any reasonable person.
Whether the rescued person can pay for the operation, and whether we
should bolster insurance companies merely so we can take a jaunt in the
forest is another question, entirely. The question of personal
responsibility is really at the heart of the American identity, in my
opinion. We, as a group, generally feel that our own actions can
control our position in life. And it is a lack of personal
responsibility that has partially lead, for example, to the over
zealous litigiousness in our society. What? My wife died while hiking
at night in the winter with no clothes on? It must be the State's
fault for not properly warning her, and hence I will sue.
> But, without any hard evidence that nighttime use of parks is
> inherently
> more dangerous than daytime use, your justifications for why the park
> might
> want to impose restrictions is specious.
>
Here I find your otherwise well thought out points to fall a bit short.
Not being affiliated with the park service at any level, I don't have
those figures available, but I strongly suspect the "hard evidence" you
seek exists. Indeed, there was an article in Outdoor magazine a few
years ago (98 maybe?) that detailed many of the nighttime problems
encountered in the nation's parks and open spaces, including gang
violence, ritual slayings and so on and so forth.
This is completely beside the point, however. The reality that we
currently live in is (I believe...and I may be wrong here) that we DO
have to pay when someone gets lost and is in need of rescue. I'm not
suggesting some hypothetical reality in which--Hey...wouldn't it be
great if people would pay for their own rescues? What I am saying is
that in the reality we live in, in order to limit our own fiduciary
responsibilities for others misjudgments, there needs to be some limits
to people's access to certain freedoms. Indeed, this argument has
circled in this forum before, and I don't really wish to rehash the
arguments now. My suspicion is that my argument will never convince
those of you who believe that any government regulation is too much, so
I will let the point drop.
I appreciate the reasoned arguments on both sides, and I apologize for
the snipe at R. Crisp (he's just such an easy target, I couldn't
resist!)
Peace,
Mark
> RO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark P.Brada" <mpbrada@yahoo.com>
> To: "The Astronomy Connection" <sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [TAC] Re: Messier Monster Booted From Peak
>
>
>>>
>> Richard...ever hear of humanity? Empathy?
>>
>>> for hikers that are too stupid to prepare properly: have you ever
>>> heard of
>>> the "Darwin Awards"?
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Fri Oct 29 12:27:10 2004