Individual Rights, and other Myths

[Mike Boswell]

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?

 

[cerich]

"fellow divers, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, dive businesses, and the reputation of the dive community".... Hmmm did the person exercising their rights create any of that? Does he/she have a obligation to any of that?

Freedom includes the word free.

 

[redacted]

Face it, basically there is little more than good sense and a desire to live restricting the rights of any diver to do as he pleases when it come to planning and executing his dives. The only exceptions I see is dive operators' rules which a dive usually has to agree to (contract) to dive with an operator. Plus there are a few local government bodies which also set rules that limit the divers rights.

Are you suggesting that operators and/or government bodies need to make more rules (laws)?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

With rights come responsibilities ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

I think your position is too utopic. there is nothing anyone does that does not impact someone else somehow. to say no freedom if and only if no impact denies freedoms altogether. If we all used that standard there would be no divorce because the kids wouldhave to move further away from some relative. We would have no transportation, industry, or rap music (hmmmmm) perhaps we should call diving an art form and preserve the same rights of so many other aspects of life. your screw up when you dive you die no one else does. No one else gets to jump on the pitty me gravy train. Instead of using various levels of consequence to qualify all humanity as being affected. perhaps if we made the divers consequence the measurement then no one pays that price but the diver and all is in ballance in the universe.

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?

 

[gypsyjim]

With Freedom, and Individual Rights also comes taking responsibility for your own choices and actions. Your choices and the actions that you chose have consequences.

Not every culture, faith, nation or movement believes in an individual having the right, or even the ability to make wise , self determining choices. At least on paper that is something we do believe in in America.

One aspect of diving that drew me to this sport over 40 years ago was the freedom it gives me. I have no wish to ever see uninformed and inexperienced politicos, and their ever present "unintended consequences" mucking up this freedom and this sport. Nature seems to be quite able to enforce it's own laws when some choose to ignore safety guidelines.

Other divers have every right to point out and criticize what they see as unsafe dive practices, and to refuse to dive with divers they see as unsafe, but I for one do not wish to see new "laws" 'protecting' us, by preventing us to make our own decisions about our style of diving.

 

[Mark Michaud SELAUSAR]

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.

 

[petrieps]

I believe an individual does have the the right to conduct their dives any way they want. As for me, I do not not conduct any of my dives outside of my training. If in the future I do want want to dive deeper and longer I will get proper training. That's me.
However I certainly would not condemn anybody for pushing their own envelope. What gives anybody the right to blast someone for exercising their freedom? Do you propose more legislation to stifle individual freedoms? Come on. People are going to do whatever they want and the few antagonists here only serve to fuel the fire. Your giving the serious risk takers a platform to justify their actions. Look at how much attention the deep air threads get.

 

[Mossman]

Hear, hear. Where would the regulation stop? Would we have to abide by PADI's rules of being limited to 60 feet without taking additional expensive classes? Will the dive op not only enforce a no alcohol policy, but also bar me from diving because I drank the night before? Will I have to surface with 500 psi even when I'm not diving with a boat that requires that? Will I have to wear a snorkel, as the City of Laguna Beach once required?

If you want to regulate any sport, regulate golfers. Scuba has always been about freedom: the freedom to explore the worlds that most people will never see, freedom to visit discover dive sites that no one has ever dove, freedom from all the surface noise and chatter, freedom from the harmful UV rays of the tropical sun. Besides, what would regulations do? Driving a car can be very dangerous and it's highly regulated, yet everyone speeds, and some drive very recklessly, drunk, etc. Regulate diving and you'll only create scofflaws. On the "honor system" most people tend to remain honorable. The few reckless deaths that do occur do not impact the sport adversely, instead their stupidity is held up as a good example of what not to do. As for the families impacted, if these reckless people were prevented somehow from doing stupid things on scuba, they'd soon kill themselves some other way.

 

[NAM001]

How much better would this world be if we all first used this as a litmus test?
Thanks for saying what need to be said.

\
\

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.