Which approach, in the long term, will result in a change of behavior to a more responsible, personally accountable approach to living one’s life (and realizing the attendant benefits to society); having government rules, or educating the public through a transient period of sad accidents afflicting the irresponsible, where family, friends, churches and or independent charitable organizations provide the support that otherwise would fall to the taxpayers and insured?
I will always opt for individual personal responsibility over government regulation. That should not be interpreted to mean that I am opposed to government regulation; I am not. Corporations and other legal entities of two or more people usually need regulation. Operation of vehicles on public roads needs regulation .....
Over 2,000 years ago, Cicero wrote, “Each should attend to what benefits himself, so far as may be done without injustice to another.”
That just about sums it up for me.
These comments plus the Cicero’s comment were what I was referring to. ...
This is not meant to be slight on you personally but considered reaction to your comments. Most of my working life has been helping pick up the pieces of peoples shattered lives from injury, whether by their negligence, the negligence of others, pure back luck or the effects of "social darwinism" has on them and their families.
None of this conversation has been taken as a slight, but thank you for clearly stating that.
In the comments below, I’m discussing my views on societal behavior in general, as well as my personal behavior, and the potential impact on our hobby.
First, I wore a helmet when I rode. I don’t ride now, because of the 150,000+ retirees in this area who, when driving, can look right at a car or motorcycle, and turn into it or in front of it regardless of right of way. That seems to have affected the younger drivers here too.
Second, I commented that I am not opposed to government regulation. I believe that there are many activities that need regulations to protect the public. I do not believe that regulations designed to protect individuals from themselves are effective. They infringe on personal freedom.
Third, I cited Cicero, because, in just a few words, he described my philosophy about these subjects.
Fourth, I agree that, under current law and general practice, individual reckless behavior affects all of society. My contention, and Cicero’s, is that it should not. Further, I believe that the current system enables reckless behavior by providing safety nets for the reckless and for those that the reckless are (should be) accountable for.
Why, for example, with all that is known about the destructive effects of smoking cigarettes, should life-long non-smokers’ insurance rates and taxes include the cost of cigarette-induced lung cancer treatment for people who started, and continued, smoking fully aware of the potential results? Note that cigarettes are legal for people who have reached the minimum regulatory age. Would it be effective to make cigarettes illegal? Has that worked for drugs? Would the lack of a safety net for smokers drive more responsible behavior in the long term? I believe that it would. i.e., I believe that societal behavior would be better for all, in the long run, if the government ceased confiscating money’s from the productive to provide a safety net for the purposefully reckless. I do support the role of public education for all, provided by the government and paid for by society at large.
When a person’s reckless behavior causes harm to someone else, the reckless person should be temporarily, or permanently, removed from society, at minimal cost to society.
I am compassionate, and I am totally in support of being taxed to help people who are unable to support themselves. While employed full time (39 years), I made significant contributions to charitable organizations, and, in retirement, I have continued to support them with donations of assets. My motorcycle and two helmets recently were donated to a charity that supports children.
This is getting long, and straying far from HBA, except for the potential regulatory implications on our hobby. (Would anyone else here support a complete absence of government regulations on home built airplanes as long as the airplanes were operated in a place and way that protected the public?)
Summary: Individuals should be free to do what they choose to do, as long as they do not affect others, including affecting society via insurance rates and or taxes. Such a system would, in the long term, be more effective at improving reckless behavior than would more regulations and safety nets. This discussion is analogous to the discussion about capitalism verses socialism. Our hobby, homebuilding, would be much better off under capitalism that under socialism.
The implications to our hobby are implicit throughout this discussion - reference threads about the future of our sport, the potential benefits of changing Part 103, the impact of the LSA limitations, the FAA pilot certification process, etc. - so I an hopeful that our moderators will allow the discussion to continue.
I do not expect everyone to agree, and I take no offense with opposing points of view.
Thanks for asking.
BJC
