🚀 go-pugleaf

Swee H. Oon (sweeho@vicnet.net.au) wrote:

: > Which is tragic but he knew the risks and took them. You're a
: > liberal. Aren't you in favour of personal responsibility? To
: > be real freedom to do right is also the freedom to do otherwise.

: Fine. Just make sure that if he does have an accident which can be
: prevented by simply wearing a helmet, he doesn't become a burden on the
: community's health budget. If one have a right to be a fool, then one can
: be an injured fool without expecting any help from hospitals or society.
: Is that what we want?

I don't know. See the Round the World Sailor Thread. If we went over
to a full cost payment scheme I would at least acknowledge the fairness
of the system. As long as bike riders aren't singled out. As long as
rock climbers, motorbike riders, round the world sailors, pregnant
women all pay their own true costs. If you aren't prepared to impose
it across the board I don't see why you should single out one pastie
for unfair treatment. Is it what you want? Perhaps we need to insist
on insurance for bike riders. Different premiums for wearing a bike
helmet or not. You think the wearers would pay more or less? Remember
that deaths are cheap, vegetables aren't.

-- 
      "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
                        - President Bill Clinton