"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:21 GMT, "Don White"

wrote:

And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?



I hope you are kidding.


Nope! I firmly believe that the gov't (or someone else ) has to protect a
certain percentage of the population from themselves,
.....and yes...you are your brother's keeper!

"Don White" wrote
Nope! I firmly believe that the gov't (or someone else ) has to protect a
certain percentage of the population from themselves,

The good Germans who elected Hitler thought the same thing.

I can certainly appreciate your concern for my well being, but I prefer
a less "protective" government that you apparently do. Where do you
draw the line? We must certainly disarm everybody (this has got to mean
knives and clubs to be effective - no baseball bats allowed), prevent
them from participating in hazardous sports (boating, rock climbing,
etc.). Criminalize alcohol, smoking, high school football, hot coffee
at McDonalds drive throughs and obesity.

The problem is that once you start protecting me, there is no end of
things that you will want to protect me from.

No thanks!

Don White wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:21 GMT, "Don White"



wrote:


And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?



I hope you are kidding.



Nope! I firmly believe that the gov't (or someone else ) has to protect a
certain percentage of the population from themselves,
....and yes...you are your brother's keeper!



--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

Dan, Frankly my desire for some regulations originates from my own
desire for independence and my unwillingness to pay for your or others'
poor choices.

When folks don't wear seat belts, life jackets or wear motor cycle
helmets, if there are injuries for which insurance, society, or someone
who is sued pays (e.g., in those cases the families cannot afford the
care), then the rest of us pay.

I empathize with your right to chose -- I refuse to pay for it. In my
state, VT, I proposed an alternative to our seat belt law to our House
Majority Leader. Folks could wear helmets or seat belts or not but
insurance companies could refuse to pay for care and folks who were sued
could avoid paying legal damages if that choice contributed to the
extent of injury.

Not only was I laughed out of town, but he asked me about the hidden
costs -- for example the emergency workers who had to pick up the pieces
of avoidable disasters. Why should their work be made any harder.

We will always disagree as a society about regulations that are stupid
and intrusive -- but life jackets, helmets, and seat belts seem very
justifiable by the above criteria to me.

harlan

In article ,
Dan Best wrote:

I can certainly appreciate your concern for my well being, but I prefer
a less "protective" government that you apparently do. Where do you
draw the line? We must certainly disarm everybody (this has got to mean
knives and clubs to be effective - no baseball bats allowed), prevent
them from participating in hazardous sports (boating, rock climbing,
etc.). Criminalize alcohol, smoking, high school football, hot coffee
at McDonalds drive throughs and obesity.

The problem is that once you start protecting me, there is no end of
things that you will want to protect me from.

No thanks!

Don White wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:21 GMT, "Don White"



wrote:


And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?



I hope you are kidding.



Nope! I firmly believe that the gov't (or someone else ) has to protect a
certain percentage of the population from themselves,
....and yes...you are your brother's keeper!



--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

Harlan,
We're getting a little OT here, so to bring the topic back to boating
and hopefully to inspire some to write their own letters, I've quoted
the email I sent the NTSB below.

It seems that in many ways, we agree. I have long been a proponent of
just such regulation as you describe ever since California first enacted
their seat belt and helmet laws. I would even extend it (if some
enforcement mechanism could be found) to different insurance rates for
those who do/don't wear them. BTW, this is not a personal issue, as I
wear them without fail. I just do not like laws that say I must wear them.

I certainly appreciate your position, that an individual's irresponsible
behabior imposes a cost on the rest of us. I would hope that you can
also appreciate mine, which is that as much as possible, the
responsibility for an individual's behavior should rest with the
individual, not society at large. Further, that once you start down
such a path, it's hard to stop since there will always be people who
wish to protect you from more "irresponsible" behaviors. Perhaps we can
then agree to disagree as I seriously doubt that either of us will ever
change the other's mind.

I do find it interesting though that you use the cost issue to justify
mandatory PFDs. Short of the cost of recovering the body, the financial
cost of non-use is minimal. As an aside, I believe way too much money
and effort goes into body recovery. If the family really wants it back,
let them pay for the recovery effort.

Fair winds - Dan

Harlan Lachman wrote:
Dan, Frankly my desire for some regulations originates from my own
desire for independence and my unwillingness to pay for your or others'
poor choices.

When folks don't wear seat belts, life jackets or wear motor cycle
helmets, if there are injuries for which insurance, society, or someone
who is sued pays (e.g., in those cases the families cannot afford the
care), then the rest of us pay.

I empathize with your right to chose -- I refuse to pay for it. In my
state, VT, I proposed an alternative to our seat belt law to our House
Majority Leader. Folks could wear helmets or seat belts or not but
insurance companies could refuse to pay for care and folks who were sued
could avoid paying legal damages if that choice contributed to the
extent of injury.

Not only was I laughed out of town, but he asked me about the hidden
costs -- for example the emergency workers who had to pick up the pieces
of avoidable disasters. Why should their work be made any harder.

We will always disagree as a society about regulations that are stupid
and intrusive -- but life jackets, helmets, and seat belts seem very
justifiable by the above criteria to me.

harlan


Dear Mr. Holloway,
Your efforts to promote safe boating are greatly appreciated, but I encourage you to be very careful when proposing new regulations making things mandatory or forbidden. Especially in the usage of absolute words such as "all" or "every".

As a long time boater, I take my responsibility to keep myself and my passengers safe very seriously. As such, children and adults aboard my boat have worn PFDs since long before California made it a requirement. However, as the responsible skipper, I am able to temper my safety rules with rationality. For instance, I would not require anybody staying below decks to wear a PFD except in the most extreme conditions. It makes no sense to me to require that an infant taking a nap in the V-berth wear one. Nor, do I require that my passengers wear one when we are sitting in a quiet anchorage.

As the skipper on the scene, I can base my safety decisions on many factors.
- Are we underway, at anchor or at a dock?
- What are the conditions? (smooth sailing, motoring, darkness, large seas, etc.).
- What are the people doing? (sitting quietly in the cockpit, sitting down to dinner, going up to the foredeck, etc.).

As such, I feel that I am able to maximize both the safety of all aboard as well as their enjoyment of the boating experience. I can't conceive of how you could word any new regulations mandating the use of PFDs that could do as well. At best, you would criminalize many perfectly safe boating practices, resulting in a regulation htat would be often ignored. Unfortunately, such a thing degrades the respect people have for all laws, not just the poor one.

I suspect that if you look at the statistics, there may be other criteria that the majority of the deaths have in common. Alcohol use, boats with a horsepower to displacement ration above a certain point, etc.. Perhaps new regulations targeting these behaviors or conditions may be even more effective at saving lives than a blanket one requiring the wearing of PFDs at all times.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues.

In article ,
Dan Best wrote:


I can certainly appreciate your concern for my well being, but I prefer
a less "protective" government that you apparently do. Where do you
draw the line? We must certainly disarm everybody (this has got to mean
knives and clubs to be effective - no baseball bats allowed), prevent
them from participating in hazardous sports (boating, rock climbing,
etc.). Criminalize alcohol, smoking, high school football, hot coffee
at McDonalds drive throughs and obesity.

The problem is that once you start protecting me, there is no end of
things that you will want to protect me from.

No thanks!

Don White wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:21 GMT, "Don White"



wrote:



And about time too! It is a shame that gov't has to legislate 'common
sense' but what can you do?



I hope you are kidding.



Nope! I firmly believe that the gov't (or someone else ) has to protect a
certain percentage of the population from themselves,
....and yes...you are your brother's keeper!





--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

"Harlan Lachman" wrote
Dan, Frankly my desire for some regulations originates from my own
desire for independence and my unwillingness to pay for your or others'
poor choices. ......

Frankly, that's a rationalizeation. Your compulsion to keep others from
having "too much fun" began soon after you were finally allowed to drive
yomama's station wagon and offered that cheerleader a ride. Your
over-protective mama had made you promise to buckle up so Sally Goodbody had
to buckle up too. So she promptly flirted down that handsome helmetless
biker you'd secretly lusted for, hopped onto his P-pad and waggled her tush
at you as they sped off. You've been trying to prevent everybody for
enjoying life ever since by making the things you fear as uncomfortable as
you can. Seat belts to drive, helmets to ride, PFDs to sail, all three to
have sex? Yeah, we heard you'd tried it and fell off ...

"unwillingness to pay for others' poor choices"?? Yeah, sure. Bwahahahaha.

"Vito" wrote in message
...

Frankly, that's a rationalizeation. Your compulsion to keep others from
having "too much fun" began soon after you were finally allowed to drive
yomama's station wagon and offered that cheerleader a ride. Your
over-protective mama had made you promise to buckle up so Sally Goodbody
had
to buckle up too. So she promptly flirted down that handsome helmetless
biker you'd secretly lusted for, hopped onto his P-pad and waggled her
tush
at you as they sped off. You've been trying to prevent everybody for
enjoying life ever since by making the things you fear as uncomfortable as
you can. Seat belts to drive, helmets to ride, PFDs to sail, all three to
have sex? Yeah, we heard you'd tried it and fell off ...

"unwillingness to pay for others' poor choices"?? Yeah, sure.
Bwahahahaha.


**I'd ease up on the porno sites & movies if I was you. You've lost touch
with reality.