Yeah, and my point is that zero competes with zero quite well, head-on. And not only have you produced some examples of your own that manage that feat, but several other sports that have much greater popularity than fencing would have a good chance of hitting that number if they were scaled that far down. So yeah, at fencing’s participation numbers, there’s plenty of competition at the zero lower bound.
And FWIW, I have to believe that you’re overestimating the relative participation of fencing. Take baseball. Practically every high school and junior high school in America has a baseball team. And a JV. And intramural teams of those who can’t make the interscholastic teams. Let’s say 100 players at each high school, and another 50 at the junior HS.
Now fencing, as varsity or club sport, is probably in a relative handful of high schools - 10%? - and probably has more like a dozen or so fencers, maybe more, maybe less. And probably barely there at all at the junior HS level. Hell, I’ll bet Little League baseball, which I played as an elementary school kid, swamps fencers at the HS level and below in numbers.
I just flat-out don’t believe there’s one school-age fencer for every 12 school-age baseball players. Maybe one for every 40 or 50. And when you scale that down, maybe there’s a death over the period in question, or maybe there isn’t. And if there isn’t, it’s zero, which competes evenly with zero.
Like you, I feel the government is already involved quite enough in my personal business. I do not want them to have anymore say in what I view as none of their damn concern. As a friend said, “a free people does not get told what they need or do not need”.
That’s a great concept. May I modestly propose a formula for calculating these taxes? People who want to have kids will add their IQs, giving a number x. Then their income tax rate will be increased by (200-x)/100 percent. For example, if the mother’s IQ was 85 and the father’s was 95, they would pay an extra (200-180)/100=20% in income taxes. That would cover the additional cost to society for a whole host of factors that are statistically correlated with IQ. I suggested this to the North Korean government but they said it was too harsh.
I don’t think you need to be a genius to realize that increasing income tax on those with low IQs who are trying to have kids will not have any sort of desirable effect.
I specifically said that activities should be taxed, not incomes. And only if the net outcome is positive, not negative.
Judging by your previous posts, I’m pretty sure that is a typo above and that you meant if the net outcome is negative.
I am very curious as to how one determines positive and negative outcome?
You gave a couple examples earlier (shooting heroin and smoking) that on the face of it seem like no brainers to toss into the negative category. They are both addictive and can have catastrophic medical consequences. Fairly easy to assess the monetary impact of the negative. How do we assess the positive though. How do you put a dollar amount on the positive side in order to make a fair assessment?
How about something non-addictive like football? Still has catastrophic medical cost potential for a few, but more obvious positive health benefits of exercise for the many.
You suggest modeling this net outcome determination on insurance actuarial science. Which is pretty good at determining risk of specific outcomes in a limited setting, but in no way applies to determining relative value of all outcomes positive and negative.
How about riding a motorcycle? A lot more potential for serious injury than a car, but a lot less environmental impact than a car – better fuel efficiency, eases traffic congestion & parking problems, less toxic emissions (I think), etc.
I never said determining the net outcome would be easy… just that I we put some effort into it, we’d be able to accomplish something. In its simplest form, my point is that one person should be forcing other people to fund/subsidize their personal hobbies.
The easy example is heroin: it’s bad for the individual, and bad for society too. Smoking tobacco is a bit more ambiguous. But I’d have some people pull out some stats and some calculators and have them find the average cost of medically treating a smoker for smoking-related health problems. They’d look to see if their taxes paid on the tobacco is comparable - and if not, to adjust the taxes. If the taxes would have to be increased to ridiculously high amounts, then an outright ban would be more appropriate.
Of course, there may be positive effects of tobacco smoking for some people. First question I’d ask though is: Is there a suitable replacement for this activity that may have a similar positive outcome but without the negative. (Like chewing nicotine gum.) If not, then I’d set up a scientific committee, with citizen input, to calculate the positive social and economic effects of smoking tobacco - and the results would be factored into the the final assessment.
Of course, that would cost money and might be a little complicated… but I’m sure a reasonable estimate could be done. For issues that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, it is something that should be pursued. For more trivial things that have lower costs/benefit numbers, it’s probably not worth the effort. I’m not suggesting everything be put to this sort of treatment, just the issues that cost the taxpayer the most amounts of money.
Specifically, Mt. Everest?
The particpants know what they are getting into, they pay a huge amount of $$, and they know that there will be NO rescues.
Seems totally fair to me-the risks are known and accepted.
Which is unlike HS football- nobody accepts the chance that a kid can be seriously injured or killed-but the activity is sought by lots of kids.
Everest seems fine. I’m all for individuals making independent decisions. People should have that right… and I think it’s a “fundamental human right”.
But if some fool decides to solo-hike to the north pole in the middle of winter, fails, and expects the taxpayers to spend $$$ to save him and pay for his medical bills, that’s probably no good.
As for “ordinary” sports like college football… I dunno what it’s like in the USA, but who pays the bills if someone gets paralyzed or something? In Canada if it’s the government that pays the bills, then the government should be allowed to restrict it - either by requiring safety equipment, forcing people to get an expensive license, or requiring them to be insured.
Assuming the family/kid even has health insurance, the health insurance pays until it runs out. Typically, policies used to have a $1,000,000 lifetime limit and end after that much is paid out. Now you might see a 2 or 3 million limit (there are higher, but they’re not so common).
If there’s no insurance, or it is likely to run out sooner than later (and someone quadriplegic can go through a million surprisingly fast) there is usually a lawsuit, after which the sued party’s insurance will pay until the limit of THAT policy is reached.
After that, the individual or his family must then liquidate their assets until they reach the proper level of poverty for social help to kick in. This usually means the paralyzed person winds up warehoused in a state nursing home and his family is left destitute.
Unless, of course, the kid had the foresight to be born to incredibly wealthy parents.
I am familiar with the of Mr. Sharp…but the fact is, he knew what he was getting in to, and accepted the chances of dying.
Were the people who walked by him saints? No, but they have their own consciences to deal with-clearly that didn’t bother them.
As for football players getting messed up for life, I read about the case of Nick Bonoconti’s son-who became a high level quadrapalegic (whilst playing football for the Citadel).
His daily care costs about $250,000/year-that is quite a burden upon society.
Are the two situations equivilent?
Right. So the government should enact laws restricting these sorts of things. I’d make it illegal to attempt it without a license… one that costs $30k or whatever amount is necessary to cover rescue costs. I’d allow, however, a regulated private solution (private insurance) for those that are afraid of giving $$$ to the government.
I think I heard it costs $50k for the permit to summit Everest - though obviously no rescue services are included in that price.
The thing is, no one is on Everest by accident. The risk - that something like 1 in 7 attempting the summit die - is well known. You pass dead, frozen bodies on the way up and again going back down. Hard to say these people were unaware of the risks.
On the other hand, something like high school football is not supposed to kill anyone, or leave them paralyzed. The risk is MUCH lower, and probably getting lower with each year. I don’t think the risks are comparable.
Borzo quite correctly pointed out that in his tax based plan attempts on Everest would still be ok, as it is extremely expensive and apparently no public funds are expended in rescue efforts. I wasn’t trying to draw equivalence, rather pointing out the failure within that system. If everything surrounding the activity, including rescue is driven by a profit motive, people will not act in societies best interest. What if it were a world renowned medical researcher dying as others trod past, summit or bust? What is the impact on society then?
Why go through the trouble and cost of determining positive and negative societal benefits of an activity in order to tax it? Why not simply disallow it? Exorbitant taxation would simply relegate the activity a playground only for the rich and those they chose to sponsor. How is that better for society?
Football is likely not getting safer. There’s apparently a good deal of research shows that as safety equipment improves, players hit harder, in effect using their gear almost as weapons against other players. There is a diminishing returns thing happening.
Of course it’s also true that whatever damage they suffer is more likely to be repaired, but that’s where the big money costs start piling up.
I wasn’t sure where to put this argument made by the cigarette manufacturers, so I’ll put it here. When determining the damages the tobacco industry would have to pay, the industry claimed, with some success, that the costs to society were overstated. They gist of their argument was that killing off people prematurely was a net benefit. Sure, some younger people got disabled and spent years in medical care, but millions of others died a relatively quick death and saved society the costs of retirement, housing, geriatric care, etc. Where was the credit for that?
As evil an argument as it is, I have to admit it has some merit.
Hobbies, personal hobbies, should only be allowed to those who can afford it.
I wanna race Ferraris as my hobby. But I can’t afford it. So no one should be allowed to race Ferraris?
People should have a right to their expensive hobbies, if they can afford it. Sure, allowing people to race Ferraris may divide the rich and the poor… but I’m not sure how banning Ferrari-racing is the “solution” to the “problem”. Racing Ferraris is a hobby and not an essential activity. If someone is willing to cover the costs, then more power to them.
Guess I am missing the problem then. While I have no cite, I am pretty confident there aren’t any leeches on society racing Ferraris.
So far you have brought up 2 self regulating hobbies, climbing Everest and racing Ferraris while arguing for higher taxes on dangerous sports. I’m having a hard time getting how this applies to high school football for example.
Two simple questions:
Do you consider high school football a “dangerous sport”?