People who voluntarily participate in activities that cost the taxpayers lots of money should either be taxed or have their activities banned. Why should my taxes pay for someone else’s risks? I apply this to smoking, driving without a seatbelt, shooting heroin, etc… and perhaps risky flying.
Thank you, Mr. Judgmental! 
Who’s to say these deaths are “needless”? Everyone needs to die sooner or later, so what’s the big whup?
The ancestor of the Reno Air Races was the National Air Races, which moved around the country in the 1920s, then took place in Cleveland in the 30s and 40s. They were canceled in 1949 after a plane crashed into a residential house near the airport, killing a young mother and her baby. The Wikipedia page says they were “resumed” in 1964 as the Reno races, but doesn’t indicate what, if any, continuity in management there was between the Cleveland races and the Reno races.
There is going to be a very interesting head-on collision between the “extreme sports” trend and the “extreme safety” trend. I predict in a few years there will be hot debates over banning boxing and football, due to the head injuries.
Nah. Society has a duty to protect people’s right to engage in dangerous activities, so long as the person is compos mentis and isn’t endangering any innocent bystanders.
I’m a fencer, both sport and historical, and I do demonstrations of fencing to groups, including kids groups. The number of parents I meet each time who say “I WOULD NEVER LET MY LITTLE CHEYNAIYA OR JIMBO PLAY WITH DEADLY, DEADLY SWORDS! IT’S DANGEROUS!” is stunning. Then when I tell them that there has never been a fatality in US fencing of anyone under 18, no fatalities in 100 years of sport fencing, and only 11 deaths in all fencing since 1930…they don’t care. And when I tell them high school football had 101 fatalities from 1982-2007, high school soccer 7 fatalities over that same time period, high school baseball 10 fatalities, and even track 20 fatalities…they still don’t care. All they see is “OMFG SWORDS KNIVES TERROR MUSLIMS 9/11 9/11”…
The average American is at heart an ignoramus of jaw-dropping proportions, and given time, will end up banning everything and anything to “protect their children.” It’s only a matter of when.
Of course we should ban swords since Muslims could get hold of one. Is this even open to debate?
Because as soon as socialized medicine starts becoming an excuse to control the activities and day-to-day lives of other people, it should be scrapped.
Just to chime in, there are many people who feel like adults should be allowed to take whatever risks they want, and to some extent I agree.
On the other hand, there are a great many people with poor education who I don’t think properly evaluate the risks they take. Perhaps IQ tests should be required before taking your life into your own hands.
We wouldn’t exactly allow a mentally handicapped person fly in one of these air shows (or even drive a car). How do we know these people are of sound mind? Is ‘age’ a good enough indicator of your ability to evaluate risk? Obviously to fly a plane you need a license, that says nothing of a person’s mental acuity or experience/skill performing these risky maneuvers.
Although, I am not sure if one can just get an aviation license and immediately participate in these air races. Anyone know?
The intelligence test IS the activity. If they die, they’ve failed the test. 
I don’t think that’s an excuse for scrapping it. Perhaps modifying it, though.
If someone participates in an activity that ends up costing the taxpayers $200-500k (surgery, cancer treatments, etc)… perhaps we should put some restrictions in place.
Insurance companies do it all the time - though I’m not sure how people would react to “Oh, you’ve smoked for the last 30 years? Well sorry, we the Government/society aren’t paying for your treatment then. Go and die.”
If you’re willing to live in a society, you should follow it’s rules. I don’t think there’s anything inherently bad in socialized medicine, even if it results in outlawing driving without a seatbelt, smoking, etc.
Maybe we shouldn’t have named our fencing club “The Suburbanite Jihadists.”
Fencing is somewhat attractive to Muslim women, because it’s one of the few sports you cover your entire body to participate in. However, my experience is those same women who want to cover their body generally won’t participate because they might end up beating a Man in competition, and the Man as you know is all-powerful… :rolleyes:
How do you not live in a society? Could you legally fend for yourself in the wilderness?
The defense of smokers is that they pay outrageous taxes on their habit which effectively go into the government pot, to cover the cost to Society of their habit. Whereas people who engage in truly risky sports and activities are rarely taxed for their participation, or even in proportion to their costs.
It’s very difficult to argue that high school football is worth the cost, for example. From 1982-2007, high school football was responsible for:
- 101 direct deaths
- 171 indirect deaths
- 257 direct non-fatal catastrophic injuries
- 245 direct serious injuries
Non-serious injuries are not tabulated by my source, nor is the economic cost. National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, Data Tables: Twenty-fourth Annual Report, Fall 1982 - Spring 2006
Even high school cheerleading had 2 deaths, 14 non-fatal catastrophic injuries, and 29 serious injuries over that same time period. For what purpose? So an uber-culture of jockdom can go out and play a game on a dozen or more autumn Friday nights?
I suppose one can claim that high school football feeds college football, which feeds professional football, which has taxes and an effect on the economy which is positive. But then one could also argue that a much less deadly sport, such as soccer, could be chosen to be the darling of nacho-gulping and beer-swilling couch potatoes across the nation, at much less cost to Society.
I’ll be the last to argue that football should be banned or restricted, except that maybe we need to take a harder look at why there have been so many deaths at the high school level. Recently there has been a big push to ban participation for several weeks after concussions, which may yield a serious positive effect. (However, I’ve also heard many parents bleating on the local news about how banning little Johnny from playing just because one pupil is 10 times the size of the other and he sees people and animals that no one else can see might cost him his only chance at going to college.)
Legal or not (seriously, someone doesn’t want to live in society but you expect them to follow the rules?) there are plenty of places in the US where people DO live out in the woods on a subsistence level. You don’t hear much about them because, you know, they’re hiding out in the wilderness and don’t talk to people much.
Pilots already pay taxes other people don’t, connected to the purchase of aviation fuel. Not that I’m in favor of raising them (avgas already costs more than auto fuel) but perhaps that’s a mechanism.
Or would you prefer mandatory insurance for pilots? Right now, small plane pilots are not required to carry insurance in the US, though a lot of them do. The fact a lot of US medical insurance policies don’t cover injuries acquired while one is piloting one’s own plane probably has something to do with that. Would you support a mandatory requirement for pilots to insure themselves?
(If anyone is wondering - the current prices for such policies in the US aren’t that high - the one I had actually cost less than insuring my car and truck.)
I’m not familiar with the insurance policies for risky behaviours, but I feel that if the government has to pick up a disproportionatly large tab in case something goes wrong, then the government should tax it, or require mandatory insurance. Some governments tax and their people are okay with it - though in the USA I can see how mandatory insurance might be more accepted since Americans tend to think that insurance companies are better with money and more just than their government.
Also, in response to the other poster: Yes, I believe there are plenty of places on this planet where you could live off the grid and out of reach of governments and society. (Those places are generally not pleasant, but the choice is yours.)
On the contrary, socialized medicine seems to be the medium of choice for busybodies to inject themselves into every other bugger’s life. The rallying call is always the same: “I pay my taxes to support this activity!”, it’s more dangerous than I’d like, and therefore it should be banned, curtailed, or discouraged.
Strangely enough, these same busybodies are pretty much always blind to their own risky activities. From what I can gather, deaths and injuries from dangerous sports pale into insignificance to the number of injuries garnered by homeowners attempting to fit shelves, attempt a bit of amateur plumbing, and so on (each year 250000 people are injured, and 70 people die in DIY-related accidents in the UK alone). If we’re seriously suggesting that playing rugby or American football is too dangerous, why are we not seeing similar calls for banning DIY?
I don’t think individuals should have the right to inflict their costly mistakes upon the rest of society.
If you’re gonna take a risk that might cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all you get out of it is a bit of “fun”, then well… I don’t see how that can be viewed as morally justifiable.
If you can find a private insurer to cover your ass, however, then it’s all well and good.
I understand your examples - and I think the pros/cons of various risky activities should be measured accurately - but I don’t think that’s a reason to avoid government-insured healthcare altogether. If you participate in risky behaviour, your private insurance company should raise your premiums too. If you’re willing to pay extra to take expensive risks, then more power to you.
I was under the impression hunting laws, and available land would prevent that. Is there unclaimed, or public land one could raise food on? If so really cool, the world isn’t as small as I thought. If not seems like you’d either be trespassing, or evading property tax.
The reason I’d think someone would want to follow the law even in the wilderness is it’s hard to escape society if society comes and arrests you for poaching, trespassing, and tax evasion.
Even then the fact society has the ability to define what’s allowed hunting, foraging, and farming shows you don’t have any choice but to live in it.
Would a dangerous sports law have a wild-man exception? If not then that’s proof you can’t leave society.
Yes, there’s public land, genuine wilderness areas, sparsely inhabited places… mostly out west but still a few in the east as well. You can hunt, gather wild foods, yes, even farm if you doing so just on a subsistence level.
In some places you’d be trespassing, but there are parcels of land in the US of simply enormous size that are just impossible to really keep an eye on.