"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much
happier
living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility
for
everyone's actions.

Youthinks wrong!

The USA doesn't own the high seas.

True.

Why should we allow uninformed
citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other
countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they
founder on the high seas?

Oh dear! After a good start your argument immediately descends into
illogical, politically correct and dangerous waters.
Illogical because ....
You say that the USA doesn't own the high seas. If that is the case,
how
could the US Coastguard be given jurisdiction over the boats that sail
the
high seas?

Ah, but there's where you're mistaken. It so happens that the U.S. Coast
Guard has juristiction over American Flagged vessels no matter where
they sail on high seas. And furthermore, U.S. Flagged vessels must pass
through U.S. Territorial waters in order to get to the high seas. The
U.S. Coast Guard's juristiction is clear and it's accepted law.



Politically correct because ....
Poltically correct arguments depend on persuading your audience that
there
is an unacceptable risk to innocent parties (the rescue services)
posed by
the guilty (catamaran sailors).

I fear you have little understanding of what politically correct means
and where the term came from. I'd like to suggest you do an etymological
search on the term. You'll find the real meaning has nothing to do with
the way you understand and use the term.

There are a few problems with this line of reasoning.
1) You haven't given us any evidence that catamaran sailors have
caused the
deaths of anyone in the rescue services.
2) You haven't given us any evidence that monohull sailors have
caused
fewer deaths than catamaran sailors.
3) You don't seem to understand that every freedom comes with a cost.
Your
right to drive a car comes with the cost that pedestrian lives are at
risk.
This is the very essence of freedom.

It is not my job to prove any of the above. It is your job in a debate
to disprove my statements. This is the very essense of logic. Rational
debate rests firmly upon a foundation of elemenatay logic.


What responsibility do you think that the state has for an individual?

Only that which the individual confers upon the state via elections and
laws passed by legislative bodies representing the individual. (the
consent of the governed)

The state should protect a citizen from crime and foreign domination.
In a
free society the state will not try to protect you from yourself. In
fact,
the oppsoite is true. In a free society the state should enable you
to
express your freedom.

Your first statement is true if that's what the electorate has decided
it wants the state to do. Your second statement is false. It's false
because it's been abundantly demonstrated that the state often protects
people from themselves as in seat belt laws, anti-smoking laws,
anti-drug laws etc. This is all done with the consent of the governed.
Your third statement is not so in all cases or even in the majority of
cases. The state enables one to vote and legislate in what ways the
individual is allowed, without penalty, to express his freedom. The old
example that you have the right to free speech yet you cannot yell
"FIRE" in a crowded room comes to mind. I am talking about free states
here - republics and democracies. My statements do not or are not meant
to apply to dictatorships.


How much expense is justified in the defence of freedom?

You sound like a confused libertarian. For your information, the defense
of freedom comes at the price of lives. It's always been that way and it
always will be. The number of lives spent (lost) is determined by will
of those who value freedom over life itself (give me liberty or give me
death) vs. the will of those attempting to enslave.

Cheers,
Wilbur Hubbard