Life is filled with risk. We can deal with that two ways. The first option is to allow people to make educated choices, thus promoting individual responsibility. The second option is to have politicians micro-manage our decisions, thus promoting passivity.
Not surprisingly, America is drifting in the wrong direction, allowing busybodies to regulate every aspect of our lives.
Here’s an excerpt from the Seattle newspaper about an example of what I call the wussification of America. But it’s really more the infantalization of America.
People who hope to beat the summer heat by swimming, floating or boating on rivers in King County must wear a life vest or face an $86 fine. …”This council sometimes thinks it’s everybody’s mom,” said Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, who voted “no.” …The law appears to be the first of its kind in the state. …it didn’t appear any other county required swimmers to wear the devices. …Opponents who spoke before the Council said sheriff’s deputies had better things to do than to write tickets for people on waterways and would be better off focusing on people engaging in dangerous behavior. …Current state law requires that kids 12 and under must wear a live vest when on a boat that is less than 19 feet long. The new county law says everybody must wear the vests when they are on rivers… It applies to people tubing, rafting, using a surfboard, canoe or kayak. Swimmers or people wading more than 5 feet from shore or in water more than 4 feet deep would also have to wear life vests.
I suppose it would be appropriate to mention that this kind of intervention has costs. When government creates the illusion that there is little or no risk, it lures people into behaving more recklessly. The housing mess is a good example. Government subsidies and guarantees caused a boom-bust cycle largely by making it seem like housing was a risk-free investment.
Mandatory life jackets are a different situation, to be sure. Maybe they would encourage people to behave more recklessly, thus offsetting the presumed benefits, but that’s an empirical matter. I’m more worried about the signal sent by such interventions – i.e., that people no longer should think for themselves and instead we can rely on Big Brother to safely guide us through life.
[…] else should be done to stop the continuing wussification and wimpification of modern […]
[…] else should be done to stop the continuing wussification and wimpification of modern […]
[…] And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore. […]
[…] And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore. […]
[…] And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore. […]
[…] And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore. […]
@Johnny Blade
This is probably a dead topic, but there is a cost in rescue efforts. When people do dangerous things, it costs the government to go save them. I imagine the solution for many conservatives, as has been the response to hikers in states like NH, is to place the cost on the endangered individual (provided the person was being irresponsible). This serves to worsen the situation because people are less likely to call for help if they know they may have to foot the bill for a $5,000 helicopter mission.
[…] written before about the wussifcation of America, but we definitely haven’t sunk to the level of the United […]
[…] 3, 2011 by Dan Mitchell Or is it another example of the “wussification of America?” I don’t know how to classify this story, other than it is a sad commentary on what is […]
This is all you need to know! http://youtu.be/tKcYD-DgfxA Jim Carey and Will Ferrell.
Guess which of the top 10 responses came from a big-government loving politician deeply immersed in crony capitalism (as opposed to real free-market capitalism)…
@James McEnanly, you’re right, and sadly, if the people who make these laws actually HAD common sense, Mr. Mitchell wouldn’t have had to write this article in the first place.
The people who make these laws assume that no one else can apply common sense. If you are going to be on the water, but do not anticipate going in, wear a life jacket. If you intend on going in the water, and know how to swim you don’t need a life jacket
Those who are rescued should be billed for the cost directly or in the case of minors, parents or guardians. That is a market based solution which gives people a financial incentive to swim responsibly without the application of direct coercion.
[…] one comes from Dan Mitchell, via Cato: Life is filled with risk. We can deal with that two ways. The first option is to allow […]
@ Michael Hawkins, unless you support completely defunding all types of welfare and per use funding of police and other county assets, that’s a nonsensical remark.
WOW. Can u imagine how aggravating it would if you wanted to legit swim? You obviously can’t swim at all if you’ve got to wear a lifejacket (if you’re in water 4+ feet deep, or 5+ feet from shore, which you obviously would be). Funny thing is, won’t something like this lead to a small boom in their pool/pool-construction industry? I mean, if I lived here and I really enjoyed swimming in these rivers often, and this law is actually enforced (admittedly, it probably won’t be enforced very strongly, since it’d be a little challenging to put in practice, and police would probably treat it as a minor offense, since I can’t believe anyone but a bureaucrat would actually think it was reasonable), then the first thing I’d look into was building a pool, or finding a pool I could pay to swim at. It’d be hilarious if something like this resulted in misallocation of resources in their community.
Boggles the mind.
Who should pay for rescue efforts?
These restrictions are also often supported by the Green movement.
I think keeping humans out of nature is an important force behind this paternalistic Wussification.
There is an often subconscious desire amongst people and city officials with a Green ideology (Red core with Green veneer) to harass as much as possible humans that come into contact with nature.
The official goal of the Green movement is presumably love of nature, but in practice it is more love of nature from afar, because whether consciously of subconsciously the Green movement is largely about keeping humans OUT OF nature. Thus, the more obstacles are placed on human interaction with nature the more humans will tend to stay out of nature. Not to mention that these activities often require large amounts of energy compared to staying put in your urban apartment. Many environmentalists are city apartment dwellers who care little about experiencing nature beyond the city park and seek to expunge their human guilt by keeping others out of nature with various direct and indirect mandates.
Many Greens believe that humans should just stay within the mandated confines of heavily planned high density urban areas as much as possible, be fed culture and take interest in enhancing the (Green) communitarian spirit. “It takes a Village, so stay within its confines and take interest in serving it”. Soft coercion towards those ends is a noble cause. I’m would not be surprised if in Green Seattle this was as significant force behind the new human-nature interaction mandates.