Individual Rights, and other Myths

[NAM001]

Mikes re appearing comments and those regarding rights in diving are apples and oranges. I personally agree with Mike in regards to tsa issues. Not in the dive related issues. Wen flying :

1.. It is not a right to get on the plane it is a priviledge extended to those who meet the requirements to board. Search is a safety requirement.
2.. Flying is an option of convenience not a nessecity of life.. making it again not a basic right
3. when it is a Terrorists time to go. I dont want to be on board when that moment comes. My time is scheduled som time down the road.
4. What is taken as degrading and invasive measures is the only avenue to maximize security ans safety for the majority of passengers.
5.. The actions taken by tsa is in responce to actual demonstrated exicution of terrorist activity and not a premtive on a perceived possibility of threat.

...When it comes to the tsa issues there is a conflict of the rights on an individual and the rights of the many. Someones rights will be stepped on. So the question is ... Whos rights do you act premptivily to preserve. The passenger or the terrorist. The bank teller or the robber. And is the threat severe enough to warrent that premtive action.
...Diving also is not a right, the priviledge is granted to those who demonstrait the skills and knowledge required for that level of certification.
...Access to a place to dive is not a right it also is a priviledge granted to those who meet the requirements of those who provide the water to dive in the transportation to the site or the Toll booth operator at the site if you pay your fee. Priviledge's are pay as you go. Rights are not.
...If you or your buddy decides it is his day to go.. you have a choice in mid dive to remove yourself from the dive and abort. Unlike the airplane where you are stuck and doomed to the same end as the terrorist.
... I would suspect that when the day comes when divers are behaving in such a way that it ends another divers existance, measures will be taken also for access to boats ect.
....Unlike the airplane the air threats are known, being carried out, and being done with out regard. The diving world may have some perceived threats, what if's, ect. Untill the diving activity is a real threat to your continued existance on this earth, the sport need not be regulated. I agree with a comment tht said regulation is needed when the governed can not act appropriately to create a unified behavior. When it comes to process the statement is true whether it is the airlines or diving. the difference in the 2 is where the line is drawn on the social behavioral impact, that if crossed requires iintervention by a regulatory group. I for one do not see the diving community having crossed that line. A coule last thoughts. You cant protect the stupid. You cant legislate morality or common sence. I feel safer in the water than i do on any of our highways, or in the air..

 

[SDAnderson]

With rights come responsibilities ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

So how do you define "inalienable?"

Some rights can not be amended, transferred, abridged, withdrawn or altered. No matter what the right holder does or doesn't do.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

So how do you define "inalienable?"

Some rights can not be amended, transferred, abridged, withdrawn or altered. No matter what the right holder does or doesn't do.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ... those are specifically mentioned in our US Constitution as "inalienable". So let's consider them for a moment ...

... do you think those rights could not or should not be amended, transferred, abridged, withdrawn or altered for people like Tim McVeigh or Charles Manson?

If not, why not?

I posit that as long as we live in a society, our rights are as inalienable as our behavior makes them. Your choice to live among other people gives you certain responsibilities for how you interact with those other people. Your rights ... inalienable or otherwise ... end at the point where they deny those same rights to others.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

I believe that the life liberty thing is a Declaration of Independance item. And as such was a letter to England (The King)saying that they were not property because they were created by God ,and by virtue of that, had certain rights that could not be taken awaylike the King had long done. I believe the Letter (DOI) continued listing the grievances the colonies had of England. It is not a binding document of the US, It is however the basis for the creation of the binding document we call the constitution. Its creators could not trust even themselves to not revert to English ways. So the constitution became a document that spells the government structure so as to not be able to regress to what was in England. It listed specific powers that are reserved to the government. Only after that when the people found to many potentials for abuse they added the intial amendments to guarentee protections for the people from the government that was made up of Englishmen.
And of course if there was any question as to who held what authority, we got the tenth. So unless there is something prior to the amendments that specifies a specific federal government role, it is in the jurisdiction of the states. We all know that the feds will fall back on the comerce clause , as it is called, to negate the tenth. I believe the situation of mc vea and manson is covered in the constitution under what is refered to as due process for the very reason you stated Your rights ... inalienable or otherwise ... end at the point where they deny those same rights to others. Even that process because is goes against the founding premis spelled out in the DOI is dictated in the constitutionof which is a binding document.

So once again What RIGHT was taken from who by being a poor diver.

 

[gcarter]

1.. It is not a right to get on the plane it is a priviledge extended to those who meet the requirements to board. Search is a safety requirement.

4. What is taken as degrading and invasive measures is the only avenue to maximize security ans safety for the majority of passengers.

What you view as a safety requirement and as the only avanue many of us view as security theatre that actually achieves little.

Grandma gets a body search while tons of cargo are loaded into the belly of the aircraft unchecked.

That's theatre.

Behavioural profiling (efficacy proven in the Middle East) is rejected because it offends some sensibilities. Yet millions are spent on scanners the experts scoff at as being next to useless, that have been shown to be easily passed.

Security theatre.

I could go on, but it does belong in another thread.

 

[paulw]

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?

I know better but..
Everything we do every day could be construed as reckless if there is a bad outcome, say a large a bite of food caused you to choke and pass away in front of others, "it affects their friends, families, fellow dinners, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, businesses associates, and the reputation of the restaurant community". These results can happen from true reckless behavior or plain old accidents and will not be changed by a government creating laws against them. The idea that divers "Individual Rights" to dive in a "reckless manner because it's no one else's business is childish, arrogant and wrong" is an arrogant statement in itself, in whose eyes are the divers actions "reckless"? And why are or were they reckless? If they succeed was it reckless? Would an unsatisfactory outcome to any endeavor make it reckless therefore potentially illegal because of the effect on others? There will always be those individuals that are called "reckless" because they push the envelope, some will achieve great things because they are willing to try what can't be done but some will have an opposite and horrible result. Be careful what you ask for because once the government gets started there is no end to doing right. Laws restricting our right to the enjoyment of life only affect those willing to obey them and a risky person is still going to “risk it” and laws will never change that.
“So let's get real here:” If a scuba diver is not allowed to make the dive he wishes to make because their friends, families, fellow divers, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, dive businesses, and the reputation of the dive community may believe that dive is “risky” do you or they have the "right" to do that? Not in my books.
Today is Veterans Day and there can be no better time to discuss these freedom’s because all of our brave hero’s, the veterans of this great country put it all on the line so we could remain FREE and have the right to have these discussions openly without fear of persecution. I would like to thank all veterans for their service to the people of The United Stated of America, your service is greatly appreciated.

 

[Paladin]

"...Diving also is not a right, the priviledge is granted to those who demonstrait the skills and knowledge required for that level of certification."

This statement is not correct. No one (in the US) is required, by law, to take SCUBA training or to possess a C-card to go diving. Anyone who wants to can buy a few books, a portable compressor and SCUBA equipment, teach himself to dive and go do it. Other than privately owned SCUBA parks, quarries and dive boats, he is free to dive anywhere in the US that he wants to. He can circumvent the dive boats by getting his own boat and dive the same places that the commercial dive boats do. Many of us older divers did exactly that. I dived without a C-card for 11 years before I finally decided to get certified.

It might be argued that recreational pursuits come under the heading of "The pursuit of happiness" and therefore are to be considered rights.

If one tries to claim that SCUBA is not a right, then one must also declare that no recreational activity is a right. Skiing, wilderness hiking/camping, skydiving, flying ultralight aircraft, shooting sports, swimming, etc. would then be considered privileges. None of these activities require formal training or licensing under the law and the government has shown little or no interest in changing this. The opposite is actually closer to the truth. For example, over the last three decades, the FAA has gradually lessened the requirements for pilots of certain small aircraft. Single seat ultralight aircraft pilots need no license to fly their planes and the planes themselves are not required to be registered.

The concept of individual rights has been a cornerstone of this nation's foundation since the beginning. Without the right to take personal risks, this country would not have expanded and flourished to near the level that it has. The idea that one must always consider the good of the many over the needs or desires of the individual is a socialist concept and foreign to the very fabric upon which this nation was built. In fact, defending the rights of the individual provides collateral benefits to the society as a whole.

Who would want to live in a society that controls every aspect of daily life under the pretense of performing the "greater good?" There is no such thing as living a safe, secure life. From the moment we are born, we are doomed, inevitably, to die. From that very first breath to the very last, we fight a losing battle against the Grim Reaper. In between, we can chose to live life to the fullest or spend it cowering in fear. Risk is a part of living and we all take risks every day of our lives, whether we realize it or not. Most of the risks we take are so much a part of daily existence that we have developed a system of denial to cover them.

Every day, we climb into machines made of thousands of pounds of steel and hurtle ourselves down the highways at breakneck speeds. We convince ourselves that we are safe because we have our seat belts buckled and modern cars have air bags. But this "safety" is an illusion. Once above a certain velocity, there is no safety equipment that will save you. I would be willing to bet that many of those who decry the idea of individual rights, on the basis that our personal actions must be restricted for the greater good, habitually cruise the Interstate highways at speeds well above the posted limits. Have you ever seen what is left after two vehicles, each traveling in excess of 70 MPH, collide head on? It ain't pretty. Yet the vast majority take just such a risk virtually every day.

Yes, I do believe that each individual has a right to take personal risks, as long as those risks do not directly threaten others. However, I advocate that those taking such risks should weigh them against personal abilities, knowledge, strengths and weaknesses. I do not have any inclination to do such things as bounce dives or deep dives on air and I learned first hand the dangers of cave diving without proper training and equipment, but I also feel it is none of my business if you want to do them. Just don't expect me to come looking for you. You have the right to risk your life doing a bounce (or solo or cave or wreck) dive and I have the right to not risk mine just to recover your corpse. I'll toss a wreath on the waves in your honor. That said, I admire those individuals who have the intestinal fortitude needed to explore the wild places. I only hope that they do so knowing the risks and only after adequate preparation.

Myself, I sometimes like to dive solo. I know the risks and try to reduce them by diving within my personal limits and abilities. It is still a risk but that risk is my right to take.

Human advancement is fueled by risk. Remove the individual's right to take risks and Mankind stagnates. As a species, we thrive on risk and adversity. If we have it too easy, too safe and secure, we get soft and decadent. Without danger, without conflict, we wither and decay emotionally. The need to fight against the odds is so ingrained in the human spirit that we will create artificial risks if none exists otherwise.

I fear that the United States is becoming a nation of wimps who are willing to relinquish rights and freedom in exchange for a false sense of security. Ben Franklin said that anyone who willingly trades liberty for security deserve neither. I agree.

As for the TSA, I feel less safe flying under their "protection." I would rather put my trust in my Army issue Colt 1911 A1 strapped to my hip than a bunch of perverted thieves whose primary contribution to air travel is to rifle through baggage to see what they can steal.

(Pant, pant) Okay. Rant over

 

[adurso]

As Hemingway pointed out:"The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."

 

[DevonDiver]

This thread really should be located somewhere in the USA regional forums.

 

[Mike Boswell]

This thread really should be located somewhere in the USA regional forums.

Because...?