Individual Rights, and other Myths

[DCBC]

...we always have the freedom to do the right thing.

I suppose what is considered to be the "right thing" may be in contention. If I want to dive to 200' on air (in-consideration of my training and experience), who is to say that I'm NOT doing the right thing????

This is a slippery slope Bob. We each use personal choice when to do a dive and when to refrain from doing so. I don't support anyone dictating to another that the element of risk on any one dive is too much. They are entitled to give their opinion, but it usually has no depth. Even an inquiry hears more than one "expert opinion" before making a decision and this is always based on the individual circumstances present and considers what is reasonable, given the circumstances, training and experience of the individual.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Kinda puts your original question in context doesn't it?

Wayne -

David James stated that diving must be "organized". I presumed that to mean, organized as in team sports like football. The freedom I said I love is about participating in individual sports like scuba. In other words, the freedom from teams, managers, coaches, umpires, fans, uniforms, etc. etc.

We have disagreed in the past but I have always known you to be fair: A fair reading of the OP would notice that I am talking about "reckless" activity.

Davidjames[/B];6126377]The diving must be organized on professional basis.This game is not being given the essential support and funds.So there must be institutions where the divers must be trained.[/QUOT

Mike Boswell[/B];6126668]DavidJames - That was Weird... But it does remind me of one reason why I love diving, and that is the LACK of "organization". I love the complete freedom of doing my own thing, and I think many divers feel the same way.

DCBC[/B];6127579]Kinda puts your original question in context doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

[mod]"DavidJames" was a spammer...[/mod]

 

[falcon125]

[Quote Spd135 As California seems to be the bright and shining example of dumb, ignorant and stupid stuff this post didn't surprise me at all. Must be something in the water out there. More "nanny stateism" Individual rights means "you need to mind your own damn business about how I dive unless it personally places you where you don't want to be" Then, you use your personal responsibility and get out of that situation.]



He's got a point - It might be something in the water. Such as, a lack of crude oil. Any ideas about how much Katrina and Deepwater Horizon cost the rest of us nanny-staters?

More crude oil is spewed into the water naturally is SoCal than any oil platform could spill.
Where do you think those tar balls come from?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I suppose what is considered to be the "right thing" may be in contention. If I want to dive to 200' on air (in-consideration of my training and experience), who is to say that I'm NOT doing the right thing????

This is a slippery slope Bob. We each use personal choice when to do a dive and when to refrain from doing so. I don't support anyone dictating to another that the element of risk on any one dive is too much. They are entitled to give their opinion, but it usually has no depth. Even an inquiry hears more than one "expert opinion" before making a decision and this is always based on the individual circumstances present and considers what is reasonable, given the circumstances, training and experience of the individual.

I've defined what I consider the "right thing" more than once in this thread. You are free to make your choices up to the point where they inflict harm or cost on others. If you want to dive to 200' on air (in consideration of your training and experience), go ahead! If you should get hurt or killed because of your decision, you exercised your freedom. If your choices result in a dive site closure ... or someone else getting injured or killed because they were trying to rescue you ... or your family decides to pursue a lawsuit against a dive op (because god forbid, your getting killed couldn't have been your fault) ... then you did not do the right thing.

The exercise of freedom means that you must own responsibility for the consequences of your decisions. I don't see that as a difficult concept for anyone who has spent more than about five minutes living in a society comprising two or more people ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

What the diving community doesn't need, is anyone who believes that they can dictate how others dive! We may each hold an opinion, however we should keep in-mind that even an international certification agency can't say what is universally "right" (let alone any individual). In other words, you and I have the freedom to state our opinion, but it's just that, an opinion.

I think it wrong for any individual to criticize another for how they dive (or for that matter, what equipment they use). As to responsibly, it rests with the individual concerned. Nature often has a way of culling those who thumb the rules of common sense.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

What the diving community doesn't need, is anyone who believes that they can dictate how others dive! We may each hold an opinion, however we should keep in-mind that even an international certification agency can't say what is universally "right" (let alone any individual). In other words, you and I have the freedom to state our opinion, but it's just that, an opinion.

I think it wrong for any individual to criticize another for how they dive (or for that matter, what equipment they use). As to responsibly, it rests with the individual concerned. Nature often has a way of culling those who thumb the rules of common sense.

Well ... in principle I agree with you. But we seem to be talking about two different things here.

I'm not the least bit interested in how someone dives, or what equipment they use. I AM interested in how they perceive their responsibilities as divers.

An example ... one of our most popular dive sites is also shared by a water taxi (passenger-only ferry) and a fishing pier. About every couple of years we have to fend off moves by the Seattle City Councill to close the cove to diving ... because some bonehead insisted on his right to dive in the taxi lane, or under the fishing pier. Now ... technically ... there's nothing stopping him from doing so. But exercising his freedom to go there causes the rest of the diving community to have to spend time, money and effort placating pissed-off fishermen and convincing the City Council that diving near a ferry lane isn't a safety issue.

Why does the rest of the community have the right to dictate to these divers that they should not dive in a restricted area? Only because these very few divers are so insistent on exercising their rights to dive where they want that they fail to comprehend the consequences of their actions on the community as a whole.

We are not hermits, Wayne ... we live in a society that is becoming increasingly interdependent as population crams us closer and closer together. Every decision we make impacts others ... and in the case of divers, it impacts many who do not dive. Those people couldn't possibly care less about your right to scuba dive ... and they will often have the access and resources to prevent you from legally doing so. When we, as divers, choose to ignore the consequences of our decisions on others, then it is reasonable to expect that those who are affected will insist on rules that restrict our rights. That's how society works ... and you can find endless examples of it in every society on the planet.

If you want to continue to have the freedom to make your own decisions, you need to make sure they are not ultimately harmful to others. This is a fundamental concept of society ... those affected by your decisions will be as adamant about their rights as you are ... and if they have the political wherewithall, or can frame it as a safety issue, they can and will restrict your rights accordingly. If you want to keep your freedom to make decisions without such restrictions, then they cannot impact others in harmful ways. I really don't see how that is a difficult concept.

This has nothing to do with how you dive or the equipment you choose ... that is a whole different issue, and one in which I believe you and I have more in common than you might think ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mike Boswell]

I agree that there isn't a conflict in what you just said Bob, however;
In his opening sentence Mike observed that some divers believe they: have the right to dive any way they like, as long as they don't harm others.
In this third paragraph he says: Do we have the "individual right" to dive in a reckless manner because it's nobody else's business?
In his fourth sentence he then states his opinion on this belief: Frankly, I find this argument to be childish, arrogant, and wrong.

Responding to DavidJames who said scuba needs to be "Organized", he defended the currently unorganized status of scuba diving, and
In his last post he now states: I love the complete freedom of doing my own thing.

His insistence that divers doing their own thing as long as it didn't harm others was childish arrogant and wrong prompted a lot of debate - now he says he enjoys doing his own thing. There is the conflict - unless what we type doesn't mean what we type.

Now some may argue that one needs to read between the lines to decipher a posters true intent but I say a poster needs to be specific in their assertions and not cast the onus of blame across a large group when they are only addressing the behavior of a select few ie: all DIR divers are elitist, all recreational divers are poorly trained, all deep air divers are irresponsible, all commercial/ex military divers are dinosaurs, all divers doing their own thing are childish arrogant and wrong... If we did this SB might be a more civilized place and discussions might be more productive.

DaleC - There, I fixed that for you. I have patiently explained my position to you repeatedly. You either don't understand it, or, more likely, don't want to understand it. That is your privilege. But if you are going to quote me, please be fair and accurate. Distorting my positions by quoting me out of context, and then arguing with your own distorted version of what I said, is pointless.

 

[DaleC]

Uhhh... I quoted you verbatim from you OP and subsequent text and I wasn't the only one to see the mismatch. Your opening sentence introduced a premise, you expanded on it and linked the assumption of recklessness to individual rights and then gave your opinion on it. You may now wish to say your stated opinion was in regards to your supporting sentence and that you only meant some people exercising individual rights but not others but that's revisionist. As the OP stands, your opinion was in regards to your opening statement. That's how it was perceived by others and why such a protracted debate ensued. Perhaps if you hadn't been so general in the net you cast initially you wouldn't have been caught in it later on. Because what you did was paint a lot of responsible divers as irresponsible because they simply chose to exercise their individual rights. Look at the OP again if your not sure.

Don't blame me for your faulty presentation. Instead of correcting my post what you should have done is correct your OP:

Some pretty savvy people here on SB have recently defended the principle of "Individual Rights", making the point that divers have the right to dive any way they like, [-]as long[/-] even if [-]as they don't[/-] they harm others.

Now that would make sense.

 

[DCBC]

Don't blame me for your faulty presentation. Instead of correcting my post what you should have done is correct your OP:

"Some pretty savvy people here on SB have recently defended the principle of "Individual Rights", making the point that divers have the right to dive any way they like, as long even if as they don't they harm others."

It would make sense Dale, but to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that "divers have the right to dive any way they like, even if they harm others." The original question was in-response to a discussion regarding deep air. Moreover, that the "right" had nothing to do with a public waterway (using Bob's example), but a person's ability to use air to any depth they chose to use it.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It would make sense Dale, but to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that "divers have the right to dive any way they like, even if they harm others." The original question was in-response to a discussion regarding deep air. Moreover, that the "right" had nothing to do with a public waterway (using Bob's example), but a person's ability to use air to any depth they chose to use it.

There is no mention of deep air in the OP. The permise was ... in fact ... that when a diver does something reckless and subsequently injures or kills themselves, it does harm to others.

From the OP ...

Some pretty savvy people here on SB have recently defended the principle of "Individual Rights", making the point that divers have the right to dive any way they like, as long as they don't harm others.

This is a version of the good old American ideal of the rugged individualist exercising his individual liberty, and has strong emotional appeal because it's linked to the successes of American icons like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs.

But does it really apply to scuba divers? Do we have the "individual right" to dive in a reckless manner because it's nobody else's business? If there is an accident or fatality, is it true that it doesn't harm others?

Frankly, I find this argument to be childish, arrogant, and wrong. Childish because it fails to recognize the inevitable consequences of an accident on other people. Arrogant because the average scuba diver is no Thomas Edison. Wrong because the implicit assumption - of "no harm to others" - is virtually impossible.

So let's get real here: If a scuba diver is hurt doing something reckless or stupid, it affects their friends, families, fellow divers, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, dive businesses, and the reputation of the dive community. Do we have the "right" to do that?

My example of a public waterway being lost to divers due to wrecklessness is exactly applicable to that scenario ... the diver's assertion of his "rights" brings harm to others.

There is no mention of deep air in the OP ... although in cases where it leads to an accident it might be held up as an example if it leads to someone else getting injured, the creation of new restrictions that apply to everyone, or the loss of a right-of-way for other divers ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)