Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in
many jurisdictions.


wrote:
I see an inconsistency in your argument.

Not really.

... If you believe that
government should institute and enforce laws against drunk boating,
then you grant that they should have a role and be able to make
restrictions. You concede that government should be able to step in
and prevent a drunk from getting on the water (and lock him up to make
sure of it). This isn't qualitatively different, it seems to me, from
reuiring that in order to have the privilege of operating a power
vehicle on the water (I already conceded that it might be different for
sailboats, I'm not sure), one must not only stay sober, but also be
able to prove that they've had basic safety instructions.

Well, let's see... are these two things the same?

1- a person has proven that they have bad judgement and
their actions are hazardous to others, so action is taken to
prevent their exercise of bad judgement in the future (and
dissuade others from making the same poor choices).

2- It is assumed that all people will make poor choices and
furthermore will not take the initiative to learn how to
make good choices.

Umm yeah, those two are the same or even close??!?




I guess I'm a loony leftist

So far I have not figured you for either a "rightist" or
"leftist" but you may label yourself whatever you like.



.... in that I think it's okay for the
government to be involved in deciding who can own guns, who can drive
cars and boats, and potentially restrict some people from doing those
things and others.

Sure. But here's the problem... in this country it is
assumed that gov't's authority is derived from the people.
WE are the ultimate authority.

Secondly, there are things the gov't can not do. For
example, the government could not stop people from drinking
alcohol. They tried and spent millions and all it did was
increase organized crime, and feed corruption. In fact
people drank more than ever!

Can the gov't stop murder? Speeding? Robbery?

No.

They can slow it down, and laws against those things should
be vigorously enforced.

Is dangerous boating already illegal?

Yes.

Are those laws being enforced?

Not very effectively.

So what is the logical argument for claiming that more laws
& more gov't intervention, with no stronger attempt to
actually enforce laws currently in place, will improve the
situation? And furthermore, why pass laws that are punitive
to a section of the boating public that IS NOT CAUSING ANY
PROBLEMS AT ALL?



I DO however, see a slippery slope situation, wherein if you let
environmentalists pan pwc's from any public waterways, they'll be
coming after your bigger powerboat next!


So?

Actually, it might be a good idea to ban pleasure powerboats
altogether. It would save fuel and reduce our dependence on
politically hazardous oil-exporting countries, and also
delay our descent down the far side of the Hubbert Peak.

DSK