Individual Rights, and other Myths

[Spazzy]

 

[TMHeimer]

Well, I have the privilege of being able to dive, but I have the right to free speech and to bear arms. The government can impose limitations on my diving, but not on my free speech or gun ownersh....,,,?

Oh, wait...

Not sure whether you're crititicizing the U.S. gov't. for imposing limitations on speech or guns or the Canadian gov't. for the gun control laws here. Interesting point-- Having grown up in New York I know of many areas where I wouldn't go/live without a gun. In Canada maybe parts of Montreal, T.O. or even Winnipeg. But generally, you don't need a gun in Canada, so there is gun control. Why should I need one in the states? Not sure what your point is, nor mine for that matter.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Not sure whether you're crititicizing the U.S. gov't. for imposing limitations on speech or guns or the Canadian gov't. for the gun control laws here. Interesting point-- Having grown up in New York I know of many areas where I wouldn't go/live without a gun. In Canada maybe parts of Montreal, T.O. or even Winnipeg. But generally, you don't need a gun in Canada, so there is gun control. Why should I need one in the states? Not sure what your point is, nor mine for that matter.

I was criticizing the U.S. gov't. for imposing limitations on speech, gun ownership, and every other constitutionally-guaranteed freedom that we possess. It's a subject we are extremely touchy about.

 

[captain]

If diving is a privilege that some entity or entities bestows on you then everything else you do short of the things specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are also privileges and that brother ain't my definition of freedom.

 

[DaleC]

Diving is neither a privilege nor a right. It is just an action that is there for the taking by those who choose to make the effort to do so. JYC, HH and others did not ask anyones permission to dive, they just did. It is only now that we debate right vs privilege because most of us don't want to make the effort required to do anything outside the social norm. We want someone else to bless our acctivity and we only want to dive in a few select spots - mainly because someone else tells us that they are the places to go.
If I want to dive I just need to find or build some device to capture and supply air at depth. This is one reason why a study of history is valuable because there one can read many many accounts of people doing just that. Then I drive until I find water. There's a lot of it out there and the state can't/won't police it all.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Diving is neither a privilege nor a right. It is just an action that is there for the taking by those who choose to make the effort to do so. JYC, HH and others did not ask anyones permission to dive, they just did. It is only now that we debate right vs privilege because most of us don't want to make the effort required to do anything outside the social norm. We want someone else to bless our acctivity and we only want to dive in a few select spots - mainly because someone else tells us that they are the places to go.
If I want to dive I just need to find or build some device to capture and supply air at depth. This is one reason why a study of history is valuable because there one can read many many accounts of people doing just that. Then I drive until I find water. There's a lot of it out there and the state can't/won't police it all.

In an ideal world ... or even the world as it existed 50 years ago ... this would be the case. In the world we live in today ... sadly ... it is not.

I don't think those advocating personal restraint are doing so because of a desire to fit into social norms ... they're advocating we self-police out of a concern that if we don't, our nanny-oriented government will decide they must do it for us. Examples are more than abundant of just that.

I'll be 60 years old in a couple months ... I was born into a world where the founders of modern scuba diving were already out there doing it. During my lifetime, the population on this planet has more than doubled. Changes in technology and industry ... and an increasing demand for decreasing resources ... have made us interdependent on each other in ways that previous generations couldn't have imagined. And that interdependence has encroached not just on our rights ... but on our ability ... to be independent of other members of society. Virtually everything we do ... every decision we make ... affects someone else. How it affects others becomes our responsibility ... whether we wish it or not.

This is the reality with which we are faced ... and this topic isn't about rights and privileges, it's about reality. Only by exercising self-restraint ... by considering how our decisions and actions affect others ... can we maintain any reasonable level of autonomy. Because when our actions impact others in negative ways, the potential for government intrusion increases.

With rights come responsibilities ... whether those rights are granted by your culture, your Constitution, or your conscience. It is up to each one of us to consider how our decisions affect others. We don't live in an autonomous society ... those days are gone forever. We have to conceive and consider our actions in the context of the world we do live in ... one where virtually everything we do affects those we come in contact with ... and when we do things that have a negative impact on others, there WILL be a call ... sometimes justifiably ... for government to create laws mandating what then becomes accepable behavior.

We either police ourselves ... or someone will want the government to do it for us. That's the reality ... and if we don't want the latter, we need to consider the former ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DaleC]

I understand what you ar saying Bob and agree with it, but I also believe we manifest our own reality. The society that complains about too much regulation is also the society that obsesses over it non stop and creates one.

And again, taking control of ones own experience and opting out of "group think" does not automatically mean one is going to be irresponsible or get it wrong. To me it is the difference between worrying about what you (meant in the general sense) are doing or worrying about what I am doing. I focus on me because that is what I can control to best effect. The imaginary world is one wherein I actually believe I can control your actions (again meant in the general sense). I can even erect fences to keep you out but as we have (or haven't) seen in Vortex springs people will find a way to do what they want regardless.

I see this argument (meant in the greek sense) revolving not around whether divers should be responsible (which is a given) but rather, how do we create responsible divers. My view is that we do not do so by quashing the spirit that allows them to think and act for themselves.

Also, not to agency bash, but there are no controls on who is allowed to become certified really so we are faced with a wide cross section of people who dive; physically, aptitude wise and behaviorally. Perhaps if the selection process were more selective as to behavioral traits there would be fewer incidents - but that would mean lost revenue and actually saying no to someone. Financially, and feel good wise, it is more profitable to restrict the rights of everyone a little bit to compensate for the minority (dress it up as public safety) than to actually exclude the minority.

As for the ideal world - I live in it now. Except for a few dive locales I can go and dive where I want when I want. 99.9 pecent of the coastline is uninhabited and most of the inland waterways have no one even considering visits from scuba divers. I recognize that some people may not have that luxury but I bet many would find far less restraint if they were less choosy about where they wanted to dive. There is a whole subset of divers (largely silent) who just go out and dive below the radar day in and day out and could care less what the rest of the world does.

 

[Mossman]

As for the ideal world - I live in it now. Except for a few dive locales I can go and dive where I want when I want. 99.9 pecent of the coastline is uninhabited and most of the inland waterways have no one even considering visits from scuba divers. I recognize that some people may not have that luxury but I bet many would find far less restraint if they were less choosy about where they wanted to dive. There is a whole subset of divers (largely silent) who just go out and dive below the radar day in and day out and could care less what the rest of the world does.

It's the same up and down the California coast. Only a few areas where diving is regulated in any way. As long as you obey Department of Fish and Game restrictions as to what you can take out of the water, and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act restrictions as to what you can touch and harrass underwater, it's almost complete freedom.

 

[OldNSalty]

If diving is a privilege that some entity or entities bestows on you then everything else you do short of the things specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are also privileges and that brother ain't my definition of freedom.

I'm OK with accepting only the Bill of Rights as rights-I generally stand behind that seldom referenced 9th one. Under the 9th, diving, and diving like an idiot is a right...although I try not to dive like an idiot.

I don't get this word privilege; it is either your right or it is expressly illegal.

 

[Mike Boswell]

...And again, taking control of ones own experience and opting out of "group think" does not automatically mean one is going to be irresponsible or get it wrong. To me it is the difference between worrying about what you (meant in the general sense) are doing or worrying about what I am doing....

DaleC - When I use words like "irresponsible" and "reckless", I am not talking about "being an individual" or "not following the crowd". To give you a flavor of what I am talking about, you need to read this story:

Fearless spirit, tragic result | The San Diego Union-Tribune