DSK wrote:
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??!?
From my perspective, they're similar in that they're both attempts to
reduce the number of ignorant, dangerous idiots on the waterways.
Also, getting behind the wheel of a power boat without first being
instructed in the basic rules of the road and safety procedures, shows
bad judgment right up front.
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.
Well you keep bringing up the fact that you don't want government
involved in making this or that decision, so you seem to be arguing the
issue from the right, implying, it seemed to me, that anyone who favors
the certification requirements is in favor of big, intrusive
government.
.... 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.
Of course, that sounds like a non-sequitor to me. Any boating-related
law or any other law should come about as result of the standard
constitutionally defined process, with the participation of the public
through their elected representatives. These types of laws I
personally support.
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!
True, I agree wholeheartedly, the government can't and shouldn't
legislate against vice.
Stop people from drinking - no. Try their best to stop people from
drinking and boating - yes. It occurs to me that there is probably a
percentage of would-be new boaters who may not even be aware that
boating under the influence is illegal, but they would learn it by
taking the basic boating safety course. I'd rather have them learn
this that way than by ignorantly going out and doing it, getting
caught, probably doing a lot of damage, and being arrested. Yup, I'd
rather just make them take the course first. I don't want to stop
ANYBODY from boating. I just want to make sure that they know the
basics first.
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.
I agree with all of the above. That's another position of generally
all of us in the pwc'ing community by the way. Strict enforcement of
existing marine laws is the best way to producing good on-water
behavior, weeding out idiots and people who just don't care, reducing
accidents and conflicts....better than arbitrary bans of any kind based
on the size and shape of the hull of any particular sub-group of boats.
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?
Where's the punishment, and what "section of the boating public" do you
mean? My position is that all power boaters should be required to
learn the basics before they hit the water. Nothing punitive about it,
and all segments of the boating public should be equally subjected to
it so as not to discriminate unfairly against anyone. Sure, I wouldn't
object to some kind of grandfather clause if that's what you mean - I
don't wanna go overboard with it, as it were, but I think it'd be great
if we could insure that a generation from now, everybody boating had to
demonstrate the same very basic level of familiarity with the basics of
safety and the law, as all car drivers do now.
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?
So nothing. You wouldn't care because you seem to have something
against power boats in general. (Me I don't have anything against any
kind of boater based on what kind of boat they have or what they do
with it as long as they're having fun and being safe and reasonably
sensible.) This has always been my personal position vis-a-vis
pwc's. Personally I don't wanna ever see them banned from anywhere
where other recreational power boats are allowed (because they're the
same), but if someone who hates 'em and wants to ban 'em, wants to toss
out all power boats too, then at least that's consistent within itself
and not so arbitrary, and I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Of course that won't ever happen because there are a lot more owners
of bigger boats than pwc's, and those owners have a lot more money!
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.
It would probably be good for those things (although I don't know what
the last thing refers to, maybe I should look it up), but now it sounds
like you're much more interested in abridging and restricting people's
freedoms than I (unless you're being totally sarcastic, but you sound
sincere). Like I said, I don't want to stop anybody from boating as
long as they just know what they're doing or know the very basics to
start, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to require that they
demonstrate that they do.
Anyway now you're being really incosistent. You don't want government
to be able to make sure that someone's taken an eight-hour boating
safety class from those know-nothing nazis at the Power Squadron or
Coast Guard Auxiliary, to make the waterways a little safer for all
your fellow boaters, but you would go along with banning all power
boats from the waterways to conserve fuel.
richforman
DSK