B.A. Ware: If your friend wishes to engage in an activity by choice, and he alone suffers, that could be described as choice. If that choice imposes harm or liability on others, independently of their will, that is another matter, which has nothing to do with either a nanny state or the PC Brigade. It does, however, have everything to do with those who are finally responsible or unfortunately the victim.
A child, a young girl, was scarred for life, after being attacked by a rottweiler dog. These incidents are very common. A lawyer told the parents that, in law, they had a sound case to bring a civil action against the owner; but it was not worth considering.
The dog's owner was unemployerd, penniless and without assets. He was free to keep a dog, by choice; the child, compelled to live a disadvantaged life as a consequence. Should owners of dogs be required to have public liability insurance, but the owner kept an uninsured dog, arguably, the child would have been a victim of a criminal act, and subject to compensation paid by the State.
I saw a a hang-glider gentleman plunge to his death when he lost control. His life, his risk, his hang-glider I wouldn't stop him. But when you die under those circumstances, with a couple of children, compulsory insurance for those dangerous activities, would be more than defensible. Why should some be able to do what they like, by choice, but by compulsion the rest of us pick-up the bill? The NHS provides an indiredt annual subsidy to insurance companies and employers, by having to bear the true cost of inadequate cover.
I agree with you, let us encourage personal responsibility, and let us start with those who finally have to pay for the 'free choices' of others.
|