6 ms·

No doubt it's a polarizing topic, and I understand why people (especially Alaskans) get angry about him going into the wilderness unprepared. The bus was moved

by grecy 6y ago

No doubt it's a polarizing topic, and I understand why people (especially Alaskans) get angry about him going into the wilderness unprepared. The bus was moved for "public safety", which raises a bigger question of safety, and personal choice. Should we stop people climbing mountains, paddling whitewater, skydiving or even just eating bacon all in the name of "public safety"? Who gets to decide that we're much better off sitting at a desk for life and never doing anything "risky"? Some people have decided a long life is better than going after your dreams, even if that long life is unfulfilling and full of regrets. That's fine with me. I'm perfectly happy to let people live whatever life they choose, and it feels strange people won't let me (or get angry about Chris) living the life we want. We all have many choices in this life, and it seems people get angry when others make different choices than themselves.

riffraff 6y ago
Please consider that when people put themselves at risk it's rarely just them. There are collective costs to people getting hurt and needing to be saved, and it's not a black/white thing: we enforce safety belts, we remove dangerous rocks and trees looming on roads and so on all the time. The bus was evaluated as an hazard that encourages unprepared people to do something and get hurt, it may be a bad call, but it's not just a restriction of "people should be free to choose".
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  You are mixing things that should never be mixed: when you pay taxes, road maintenance - including removal of rocks and trees - is a service that you paid for and you have to get. Enforcing safety belts is not a service for you, it is a measure imposed by coercion by the state that believes it knows better. There is no similarity between these.
  - riffraff 6y ago
    Of course they are not the same thing, they are just instances of the authorities deciding that X is unsafe. Also, the fact you pay for road maintenance does not indicate what maintenance is. People could be on the "I like looming rocks, they give character to this road, instead use my money to lay new asphalt instead of wasting it on landscape" camp. But the state thinks it knows better than you that exploding looming rocks is more important than letting you drive faster.
greenshackle2 6y ago
Your "personal choice" may end up risking the lives of search and rescue personnel, and costing the public hundreds of thousands of dollars. You get the benefits of your risky fun but a large part of the costs are externalized. I don't want to live in a risk-less, fun-less society either but there are limits. As long as society is footing the bill, society has an interest in imposing limits. I'm perfectly happy letting you do whatever you want, as long as you are not endangering the public, and you bear the costs. I'd be all for a system where you can opt out of health and safety restrictions, with the caveat that it also opts you out of health and safety programs, like publicly-funded search and rescue.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Public safety costs are a sunk cost (staff are on call, vehicles are paid for), they will exist regardless. Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared. That is a muscle we should be expected to flex as humans. The best way to learn is to do. I would agree that after your second or third rescue though, you're becoming a nuisance and should bear some of the cost.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Public safety costs are a sunk cost, they will exist regardless. No. Overtime, helicopter flight hours aren't a sunk cost. > Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared. The issue here is in that one important word: reasonable. Exploring your neighborhood? Certainly. Exploring a mine shaft without a rope? Maybe a bit less so? > The best way to learn is to do. Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring".
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
newacct583 6y ago
> Should we stop people climbing mountains, paddling whitewater, skydiving or even just eating bacon all in the name of "public safety"? Probably not, but neither should we be leaving bait out for them either. They didn't infringe on anyone's rights here. The mountains and whitewater and sky and bacon are all still there. They moved a bus.
msla 6y ago
> The bus was moved for "public safety" They removed the bus so it couldn't act like a moron magnet anymore. They didn't remove the location, they didn't fence it off, they didn't ban hiking. They didn't even impose an IQ test or a basic competency quiz for hiking. Anyone who wants to go out there and re-enact the McCandless Experience is still free to do so, and they're even still free to call SAR when their horrible lack-of-a-plan begins to cause them the predictable amount of personal discomfort.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by grecy 6y ago

riffraff 6y ago

Please consider that when people put themselves at risk it's rarely just them. There are collective costs to people getting hurt and needing to be saved, and it's not a black/white thing: we enforce safety belts, we remove dangerous rocks and trees looming on roads and so on all the time. The bus was evaluated as an hazard that encourages unprepared people to do something and get hurt, it may be a bad call, but it's not just a restriction of "people should be free to choose".

AdrianB1 6y ago
You are mixing things that should never be mixed: when you pay taxes, road maintenance - including removal of rocks and trees - is a service that you paid for and you have to get. Enforcing safety belts is not a service for you, it is a measure imposed by coercion by the state that believes it knows better. There is no similarity between these.
- riffraff 6y ago
  Of course they are not the same thing, they are just instances of the authorities deciding that X is unsafe. Also, the fact you pay for road maintenance does not indicate what maintenance is. People could be on the "I like looming rocks, they give character to this road, instead use my money to lay new asphalt instead of wasting it on landscape" camp. But the state thinks it knows better than you that exploding looming rocks is more important than letting you drive faster.

greenshackle2 6y ago

Your "personal choice" may end up risking the lives of search and rescue personnel, and costing the public hundreds of thousands of dollars. You get the benefits of your risky fun but a large part of the costs are externalized. I don't want to live in a risk-less, fun-less society either but there are limits. As long as society is footing the bill, society has an interest in imposing limits. I'm perfectly happy letting you do whatever you want, as long as you are not endangering the public, and you bear the costs. I'd be all for a system where you can opt out of health and safety restrictions, with the caveat that it also opts you out of health and safety programs, like publicly-funded search and rescue.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Public safety costs are a sunk cost (staff are on call, vehicles are paid for), they will exist regardless. Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared. That is a muscle we should be expected to flex as humans. The best way to learn is to do. I would agree that after your second or third rescue though, you're becoming a nuisance and should bear some of the cost.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Public safety costs are a sunk cost, they will exist regardless. No. Overtime, helicopter flight hours aren't a sunk cost. > Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared. The issue here is in that one important word: reasonable. Exploring your neighborhood? Certainly. Exploring a mine shaft without a rope? Maybe a bit less so? > The best way to learn is to do. Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring".
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago

> Should we stop people climbing mountains, paddling whitewater, skydiving or even just eating bacon all in the name of "public safety"? Probably not, but neither should we be leaving bait out for them either. They didn't infringe on anyone's rights here. The mountains and whitewater and sky and bacon are all still there. They moved a bus.

msla 6y ago

> The bus was moved for "public safety" They removed the bus so it couldn't act like a moron magnet anymore. They didn't remove the location, they didn't fence it off, they didn't ban hiking. They didn't even impose an IQ test or a basic competency quiz for hiking. Anyone who wants to go out there and re-enact the McCandless Experience is still free to do so, and they're even still free to call SAR when their horrible lack-of-a-plan begins to cause them the predictable amount of personal discomfort.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]