When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Originally Posted by uppitychick,Jan 17 2005, 07:02 PM
Okay, new topic: Should we rescue people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way, vis-a-vis the skiers in Utah in avalanche. I previously stated this one, but no one responded, anyone care to respond?? Or is this dead
Yes. But then they should have to pay the cost of the rescue. If it were the law that one's wages would be garnished until the debt is re-payed perhaps it would make people think twice about going into "out of bounds" areas. I believe that is the way our civilized society would view this issue. Sort of like the rationale for mandatory helmet laws. That is, that the society will bear the expense if one is not wearing a helmet.
Now, with that stated: In Matt's world. One is personal responsible for one's decisions and actions. If one ventures into a clearly marked "out of bounds" area. One has just accepted all the responsibility for one's action and is on their own. On the other hand, if the area was not clearly marked, I believe that society has the responsibility to do the right thing.
My philosophy is very simple: If the person did not do anything wrong (i.e. not marked "out of bounds") it should not cost them. On the other hand, if society did the right thing by clearly marking an area out of bounds, society has met it's responsibility and it should not cost us.
But I know that you are just trying to irritate me. 
