3 ms·

Regulations are extremely useful in things like building integrity codes (quake tolerance/etc) but that's because in these cases they serve a useful purpose in

Regulations are extremely useful in things like building integrity codes (quake tolerance/etc) but that's because in these cases they serve a useful purpose in preventing exploitative behavior. It's not easy for a regular person to tell the difference between a building that could stand for centuries and one who's foundation is ready to tumble if somebody sneezes too hard. And the latter is vastly cheaper to build - so there's a major incentive to exploit people in a way they could not be reasonable expected to appreciate. But in this case, why are regulations actually necessary? It's quite self evident that going to go see two trains collide is not exactly the safest activity. But so long as the consumer understands this, I see little difference between this and something like the Running of the Bulls or even independent activities like wingsuiting. One of the most bizarrely entertaining experiences I had was in the developing world. At a festival there was a large wooden tube that was several stories tall. Looking at it top down it'd look like a donut. The outer ring was a ramp that circled all the way to the top with intermittent standing room facing the inner ring. The inner circle was mostly solid excepting these openings. So what was it? A small door opened at the bottom a motorcycle came out and started driving around the inner tube climbing all the way to the top of the building before zooming back down and zipping all around. And he'd drive with one hand grabbing tips people would hold with their hands on the various levels with his other hand. And the 2, 3, and 4 more motorcycles came out and all were driving around the building doing the same thing. And then finally a truck came out of the bottom and started driving up the building as well. About that time the building was violently rocking. Absolutely insane, but absolutely fun. Everybody in there had a ton of fun at a moderate amount of risk - and I cannot imagine how much money those drivers were making in tips alone. Certainly the equivalent of thousands of USD for a night's work. The only thing I thought was "Never in a million years would this be allowed in the US" and it's an experience I'll fondly recall til the day I die. I remember seeing something remotely similar at a circus when I was young. Except it was done inside an isolated steel ring in the center of a stadium with everybody seated about 20 meters away at the minimum -- that was.. cute. And I think that's kind of a shame. Who in the world is the government to not allow people to engage in risk taking behavior so long as the risk is mutually appreciated? If anything, I'd be okay if there was a requirement of all participants and observers having sufficient commercial medical coverage such that in the case of an accident the victims would not be a burden on the rest of society.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> It's quite self evident that going to go see two trains collide is not exactly the safest activity >> The event had to be delayed for an hour because the crowd resisted being pressed back by the police to what was supposedly a safe distance
danso 9y ago
> Who in the world is the government to not allow people to engage in risk taking behavior so long as the risk is mutually appreciated? If anything Because the government and taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill for the ensuing aftermath. Yes, there is a limit to which the government can regulate personal risk. But the event described sounds big enough to go beyond issues of personal risk and into realms in which the government is expected to be liable and responsible. I didn't find your anecdote to be particularly convincing. It sounds like you had a great night of entertainment when visiting a developing country. But it also sounds like it might have involved folks putting themselves in dangerous situations for others' entertainment? At some point, isn't it an unhealthy situation when a developing country's people (presumably poor people) are happy to throw themselves in dangerous situations because the reward of tourist money is so alluring? As entertaining as the show may have been, it doesn't sound like a great long-term arrangement for that country. And it doesn't seem worth having deregulation for in the U.S.
- indubitable 9y ago
  The event I'm discussing was pretty much all locals and has nothing to do with tourism, but that is completely beside the point. Googling for 'event where guys drive bikes around circular wooden structure' to even see if I could find it online gave me Burning Man, though the second hit - what wiki calls a 'Wall of Death' is correct. Though, then googling for 'Wall of Death' gives me metal concerts. Anyhow, that's a tangent - but one I found amusing! It absolutely is the duty of the government to clamp down on fraudulent and deceptive behavior. However, I do not see at as the role of the government to clamp down on behavior that two individuals mutually consent to with a shared understanding of the risks involved, so long as that behavior stands a negligible chance of impacting non-consenting individuals. And as mentioned, this could include things like requiring private health insurance of the deal might involve one participant or the other injuring themselves since requiring public healthcare would enter into the realm of impacting non-consenting individuals. Be stupid if you want - society doesn't pay for it though. Danger itself is not inherently exploitative. If anything, I suspect exploitation may be rarer in dangerous fields than other simply because adrenaline is something many people live for -- and if you don't then you're probably not going to get involved in whatever career path has you careening one handed around wooden structures. That's not something most people could do, even if they wanted to. For example wingsuiting is incredibly dangerous, incredibly fun, and can be incredibly lucrative for the top few through sponsorships and advertisements. But it's obviously not little guys just trying to feed their families; for the most part it's also primarily something only people who are pretty well off can even get started in.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> It's quite self evident that going to go see two trains collide is not exactly the safest activity >> The event had to be delayed for an hour because the crowd resisted being pressed back by the police to what was supposedly a safe distance

danso 9y ago

> Who in the world is the government to not allow people to engage in risk taking behavior so long as the risk is mutually appreciated? If anything Because the government and taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill for the ensuing aftermath. Yes, there is a limit to which the government can regulate personal risk. But the event described sounds big enough to go beyond issues of personal risk and into realms in which the government is expected to be liable and responsible. I didn't find your anecdote to be particularly convincing. It sounds like you had a great night of entertainment when visiting a developing country. But it also sounds like it might have involved folks putting themselves in dangerous situations for others' entertainment? At some point, isn't it an unhealthy situation when a developing country's people (presumably poor people) are happy to throw themselves in dangerous situations because the reward of tourist money is so alluring? As entertaining as the show may have been, it doesn't sound like a great long-term arrangement for that country. And it doesn't seem worth having deregulation for in the U.S.

indubitable 9y ago
The event I'm discussing was pretty much all locals and has nothing to do with tourism, but that is completely beside the point. Googling for 'event where guys drive bikes around circular wooden structure' to even see if I could find it online gave me Burning Man, though the second hit - what wiki calls a 'Wall of Death' is correct. Though, then googling for 'Wall of Death' gives me metal concerts. Anyhow, that's a tangent - but one I found amusing! It absolutely is the duty of the government to clamp down on fraudulent and deceptive behavior. However, I do not see at as the role of the government to clamp down on behavior that two individuals mutually consent to with a shared understanding of the risks involved, so long as that behavior stands a negligible chance of impacting non-consenting individuals. And as mentioned, this could include things like requiring private health insurance of the deal might involve one participant or the other injuring themselves since requiring public healthcare would enter into the realm of impacting non-consenting individuals. Be stupid if you want - society doesn't pay for it though. Danger itself is not inherently exploitative. If anything, I suspect exploitation may be rarer in dangerous fields than other simply because adrenaline is something many people live for -- and if you don't then you're probably not going to get involved in whatever career path has you careening one handed around wooden structures. That's not something most people could do, even if they wanted to. For example wingsuiting is incredibly dangerous, incredibly fun, and can be incredibly lucrative for the top few through sponsorships and advertisements. But it's obviously not little guys just trying to feed their families; for the most part it's also primarily something only people who are pretty well off can even get started in.