Yet another Letter to the Editor trying to create a set of Rights that are just blithering (as in ....fool) - Granite Grok

Yet another Letter to the Editor trying to create a set of Rights that are just blithering (as in ….fool)

In one of the local papers was one of the local professors whining about the fact that he doesn’t like bikers without helmets – "what about the rights of ME when you dump the bike?" seems to be the complaint.

Well, there is one thing on which I will agree with him on (which will come later) but a faux right is not one of them.

Is riding a motorcycle without a helmet really a victimless activity?

To the editor,

The recent debate over helmet and seat belt laws have been argued in the context of personal rights and liberties. It seems that some people think that their right to eschew these reasonable safety precautions is a basic “right” and that those of us who oppose that right are trying to deprive them of their liberty. But, I would like these people to think about the “rights” of others involved in their decisions.

What Liberals love to do is to manufacture implausible set of rights from basically thin air – and then get upset when you disagree with them.  In this case, I think he is trying to weasel out of a situation where those of his philosophy have foisted an obligation upon him that really is the problem versus the one that has drawn his ire.

Frankly, I totally disagree with his premises:

  • that because HE believes something is reasonable, it should be incumbent upon someone else to do as he says (Nanny Statism all the way, baby)
  • that other people have rights concerning a single person’s decision on behavior.

And yes, Professor Cracraft, you ARE trying to remove the ability for someone to make a decision about their own life merely because you disagree with it.

What about the “rights” of doctors, nurses, EMTs, and paramedics that have to work (sometimes overtime during Bike Week) to save the lives of those who have exercised their right to “live free and die” (stupidly) without a seat belt or a helmet?

Mr. Cracraft is postulating that the rider must wear a helmet so as to not assault the sensibilities of these folks.  After all, why should they have to put up with the gore and all that might result from an accident?

Note to the academician: Medical personnel HAVE no rights in this regards – not even one that you are trying to manufacture.  They have, of their own free will, decided to pursue their professions.  In doing so, they should have realized that they will, most definitely, have to deal with the aftermath of people who decided to do dumb things – even those sufficiently dumb, to have earned a place at the Darwin Awards and have removed themselves, on a voluntary basis, from the gene pool.

They also have the freedom to stop their practice at any time.  Until then, their obligation to their employer (usually the hospital or other medical situation) is to treat who comes in the door – regardless of happenstance or intent.

What about the “rights” of those who have to mourn for a lost loved one?

While there is a genuine loss, there are no rights here either. 


I can tell the Eldest until my breath is gone to put on the helmet – and he doesn’t have to listen to me (and generally doesn’t).  Would I mourn his death?  Absolutely.  Do I believe that I have the Right to tell another adult to do what I want him to do, even adding in that he is my son?

No, I do not.  I did while he was a minor (telling him what he could and not); in fact, there was a moral and legal obligation to do so. And only insofar as I was his Dad, the Right.  But not after the Age of Majority.

No, no right at all other than the bonds of love for those who loved and for those he loved.

What about my “right” to have a beloved brother who would be alive today if he had only worn a seat belt?

It may sound cold-hearted, but you have no Right to this as well.  For to do so, to insist that your decision for him overrode his decision for himself is to limit his free will. 

All life is about risk – NOTHING allows for "no risk" (even as Liberals try to limit the lives of others so as to eliminate such risks).  He made a decision – a bad one.  Decisions have consequences – but he had the freedom to make that.  Should you have been able to stop him – is that the point?

No, Mr. Cracraft – even in this you had no Right (even as I am sorry for your loss).

What about the rights of those who have to care for a brain-injured relative who chose to exercise his or her “right” to engage in behavior that almost all reputable medical and safety organizations view as irresponsible?

You conflate Rights with Obligation – a most serious of mistakes.  Again, in this case, it is the bonds of love that create that obligation, or the familial bonds that create the obligation.  The person with the injury has no Right to have their family care for them; only to that level in which love intervenes and assuages hurt.

And let us not forget – either death or brain injury can happen as a result of accidents even when ALL safety precautions have been taken and used.  STUFF happens – and not always happy ones.  That’s simply life.  No, that is not just a stoic attitude on my part – but a simple acknowledgment that we cannot be in control all the time.

Is driving without a seat belt or riding a motorcycle without a helmet really a “victimless” crime or activity?

As far as a family is involved, no.  As far as friends are involved, no. In this case, victim is the wrong word and is deliberately chosen to construct a feeling of helplessness.  The right way to view this is that consequences of bad behavior of all kinds can and do affect others.  Making them victims, however, is not correct and is used only to emotionalize a bad situation.

When I studied civics in high school, I was taught that my “rights” ended where another person’s rights began.

This is part of the problem – I would say that you were ill taught in that civics class as true Rights are dependent on no other person except to let you express that Right – including the Right to free speech, right to assembly, the right to private property, the free expression of religion, and all others enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  And that’s it – and any other Right that can be discussed is generally a faux one made up solely to win points in a debate.

In other words, in a civil society, we must be careful that in exercising our rights we do not trample upon the rights of others.

And this is the danger of the Liberal / Progressive mentality and philosophy – be creating a web of faux "Rights", they can be used to limit the Freedom of others.  Tell me, of the actual enumerated Rights in the Bill of Rights, which ones of yours would I be trampling on if I exercised them?

Correct – none.  But for example, often the Right of Free Speech is bastardized to be the Right to Not Be Offended by Liberals – and used as a tool to take my actual Right away. 

What Mr. Cracraft is trying to do is to weave a new Right out of thin air – let’s call it The Right Not To Have To Experience Grief Because Of A Dumb Decision On The Part Of Another in order to win a debate concerning the Right of another individual to make a decision for themself.

In effect, he wishes for the State to be, yet again, a Nanny that says "You can’t do that because it is dangerous behavior".  Note: Life (life with a big "L") has never made that guarantee to any one.

Since many of the advocates of the “right” to “live free and die” seem to be those conservatives worried about taxes and government spending, have they ever considered that they, as taxpayers, may ultimately pay for that right? What happens if you ride without protection and do not have medical or disability insurance? Do I, as a taxpayer, have an obligation to care for you because you were so irresponsible to drive a car or ride a bike without a seatbelt or a helmet?

And now we come to the essence of the argument.  My response is:

Liberals like you have decided that society WILL socialize the cost of making bad decisions.  You have brought this upon yourself.

I agree – going without a helment is a bad idea but you make me pay for it as well.  And sadly, because he refuses to wear a helment, I and you may both pay for the Eldest’s bad decision if he dumps the bike.  Society decided a long time ago that all people will receive care in this case (as well as others like it where bad behavior, like a deliberate drug overdose, will be paid for by taxpayers.

You cannot have it both ways – complain that you have to pay in taxes for it yet demand that our laws account for it.

And this will continue for as long as one thing after another is judged to be the responsibility of society to cover the cost: supplying needles to drug addicts, substituting Government for responsible husbands and encouraging non-nuclear families via welfare payments, blaming society of ill outcomes for those that refuse to be self-responsible et al.  In short, any situation that traditionalists like me would say "why are we paying to allow someone to continue to do stupid things?" instead of insisting that they become responsible adults?

Here’s a suggestion – stop having society pick up the tab!  Knowing that bad behavior would be borne solely by one’s family may well knock some sense into someone before an accident knocks them out – permanently.  It might force them to responsibly arrange things in advance in case of a bad outcome – or have them re-evaluate the behavior altogether.

One thing that really concerns me is that many of our state’s politicians and business people are crafting this debate in terms of “how would a helmet law affect Bike Week and the profits and revenues we get from bike week?” The concern of these people does not seem to be the health and safety of our citizens and those who visit the Lakes Region.

And I have no problem with this – as I do not combine capitalism and a Nanny State into one entity.  Capitalism is so often castigated for things in life that have NOTHING to do with the argument at hand – and you are doing it here.  Remember, it is the taxes that the capitalists pay that allow you to continue to teach at the State College.  And if no one is earning profits, you are unemployed.

And how would that be responsible for your family’s situation?

Actually,
since New Hampshire is one of the few places where helmets are not required, a helmet law would probably not affect their businesses that much. Some bikers might complain and moan a bit but they will still come. After all, the excitement and attraction of Bike Week is much more than the so-called “right” to ride a motorcycle without adequate protection.

E. Scott Cracraft
Gilford 

Er, if you haven’t been looking, attendance is way down for that event.  And taking away one of the lures of the Week wouldn’t help that.

What I do agree with him on is that we, the taxpayers ARE on the hook for the bad results that may occur.  The sad thing, is that society has put itself into the victim class by socializing the bad outcomes of risky behavior.   So in effect, Mr. Cracraft, you have done it to yourself.

Like I said, the only way out is to change that decision.  Willing to do that?

>