Law of the Land

Glad to see this thread is still alive and kicking, and more importantly has some people thinking and discussing. Personal responsibility, poor legislative decision making fueled by monetary gain and "compensation", all sort of trickle in. That's one reason I was uncertain whether to place it here, or in the political forum. I thought, though, that as it pertained to Wilderness & Survival Skills it had some real value though, and hope that it continues to.

I understand that some of these laws are in place to preserve Wilderness Areas, and for good reason. I'm sure most of the forumites here understand that. Esav is doing a good job of keeping the original topic in mind. :thumbup:
As it applies to a survival situation, most of us seem to agree that some rules are flexible, or even breakable. Most of us also seem to agree with taking responsibility for doing so, and some have pointed out laws that provide a defense for some extenuating circumstances.

I agree with all those things, especially personal responsibility. That's why I have a problem with a lot of regulations and laws passed. As Mr. Linton pointed out, a large part of them are in place because some people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, especially if they think they can hold the state responsible. I think a lot of that does have to do with the "almighty dollar" when it comes to suing for reparations, etc.(and I hope I've read that right, and not twisted your statement Thomas, if so I apologize)

Another good point was, at what point should someone else's lack of good judgement, common sense, and unwillingness to take responsibility affect me?
A lot of these laws that some of us find trivial weren't put in place for us, we didn't call for them, yet they affect us. Fair? I don't think so personally, but I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions if I do decide to take a "calculated risk".Speaking generally here, but keep in mind these are all just my opinions. I apologize for the blanket statements, and use of Us/Them rhetoric, but it's all colloquial.

There are a few more things on my mind, but I'm long winded. I'll spare ya, for now ;)

Gautier
 
Esav Benyamin said:
At what point does someone else's error or irresponsibility become MY (and YOUR) problem?
Click to expand...


Since I am in Ems, and SAR and water rescue it becomes my problem pretty Quickly ;) ( I realize thats not what you meant)

I believe we need a waiver that every one should sign that says " I am responsible for my own mistakes and I can't sue anyone because of something stupid I do" that would keep the morons from ruining it for the rest of us.

But back to the origional Topic. How to deal with the law and other people during an emergency situation?

In Rescue there is a rule, "A dead rescuer rescues no one" I think this translates well into what we are talking about. Whether its distressed hikers, panicked neigbors or stranded motorists, the best option is always to assess the situation befor doing anything that might put you in harms way and that includes offering aid.


I also think it is a good idea for anyone truly interested in preparedness to get involved in emergency services if you can. Wether its police auxilliary, Volunteer Ems or fire, or a CERT program, these will help give you experience dealing with emergency situations. and it will also put you a level above the mobs in they eyes of authorities, and the mobs themselves during those emergencies. its amazing how much respect a badge, a uniform or even a saftey vest and flashlight can get you from a scared group of people who just want someone to tell them what to do.
 
I agree with every bit of that EMS, like I said before when Esav asked about whether or not to lend assistance. It's important to assess whether or not you're going to be putting yourself at equal or greater risk, and how you might be able to help with neglible risk involved.
As for that waiver idea :thumbup: :thumbup: Where's the paper, I'll sign :D

Gautier
 
for the record ems there were no unsafe conditions. the kids were 12-14 playing in very slow moving water up to about 3 foot deep. their probably in more danger slipping in their bath tubs. thats part of what im talking about. there is nothing wrong with kids wading/swimming in the river. it strikes me as ironic how often government "professionals" think they are the only ones qualified and smart enough to swim in the water or start a fire or put out a fire for that matter or have/carry a gun/knife. too many get sent to a week long class, get a certificate in their file and think no one else has any common sense.

if there were unsafe conditions id have pulled the kids out long before the fd showed up. life is not safe, despite guardrails, seatbelts and bicycle helmets. people get hurt and even die. im not saying throw out all the rules. im just saying lets be reasonable and responsible for ourselves.

i do agree with you however that the fault lies with the people, us. wether it is the people we elect or the opinions of the jury's we sit on. ive heard it said that people get the govt. they deserve. i gues im just trying to deserve something better. i would rather be more free than more safe. so much of the crap im talking about would not have flown 100 yrs. ago. ohio is a somewhat conservative state, better than many but i just dont like the direction things are going. its like swimming against the tide.
joshua
 
The safer you are normally, the harder it will be to survive a disaster. People who never have been allowed to make a fire or swim in a river are the ones to panic when they have to depend on these skills that they never developed.

I knew people in New York City who would walk through Central Park during the day, but couldn't believe I'd walk there at night.
 
As I said when I first started this thread, I'm a big fan of quotation, and it has it's purpose, but is no substitute for thinking for one's self. That said, I'd like to recite a quote by Benjamin Franklin that; "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither".
It's my opinion that people have always been, and probably will remain, afraid of anyone who runs free. Specifically of those people that choose to follow their own moral compass, rather than the written legislature of man.
Some very good points have been made about when to "switch on" those parts of our brain that don't adhere to societal constraints, how those constraints are first formed(either for monetary reasons, or unwillingness to accept personal responsibility) and all manner of things in between.
I try to remain on the logical side of this question as much as possible, without delving into the emotional aspects of it, within reason.

That said, I think, as I have for a long time now that this question is much like everything else in life; If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it's that everything in the universe, this life, however you want to look at it...follows one rule, and that's balance.
Everything comes back to balance, it's a fine line to walk between having to make decisions logically and morally, emotionally and rationally, to put your life in the hands of faith(if you have any) or to determine that you control your own fate.
This is a topic that could theoretically go on forever, and probably will in some people's minds. I think it's safe to say though, that like many things we discuss, it's a personal decision and preference.
Whether or not we succumb to the governmental control, that I personally feel is slowly encroaching upon our rights(whether you think they are God given, inherent, politically assigned, or human constructs), or we blindly follow some things, assuming that they are for the "greater good". These will ultimately be individual choices, and again as was said, you have to be willing to accept personal responsibility.
I don't think that anyone can deny though, that rights are being encroached upon, especially since, 9/11(again, I'm treading near political discussion, and if this is moved, I'll understand) and that we are less free now, than those who came before us.

I think, and this is my opinion, that is what unites us all in our passion for the wilderness:The freedom that it represents, among other things. I'd really like to see this discussion carry on, and I know I have plenty more to say in regards to it, but if it doesn't, there are just a few closing points I'd like to make.

First of which is that, since this is largely concerning survival, I think it's imperative that we weigh what it is we are surviving and what we are surviving for, because if you do survive you'll have to answer to someone, even if it's just your own conscience.
Secondarily, and in support of the first, is that we are social creatures and somewhat altruistic. So, what good is surviving certain catastrophes without having someone to share it with afterward? Will we tell stories of how philanthropy and altruism saved the day, and cooperation brought us back to a "civilized society" or will it be "survival of the fittest"?
Lastly I'd just like to say that I'm proud to be part of a community that's willing to freely exchange ideas and pose hypothetical questions/situations that touch on sensitive issues and sometimes even offend the sensibilities of others, that we are civil in our exchanges, and don't(as some would say) resort to being animals. I know that this issue of "Man's Law" .vs. "Nature's Law" had/has different meanings for some than others, and there is some controversy, but I'm thoroughly impressed with the way it was carried out.

I contend that it ultimately comes back to that universal law of balance though, to determine when we forego the laws of man for those of nature and self-preservation, in order to survive, and hope this gives some people a new perspective on just what 'survival' means.


Gautier

P.S. Pardon any spelling, grammatical, or contenxtual errors as I'm somewhat inebriated as I write this, but I hope that I concisely convey what I meant to say.
 
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
 
Yes, that too :p There are a few derivatives and variations of that quotation. You get the jist though. :thumbup:


Gautier
 
Gautier said:
P.S. Pardon any spelling, grammatical, or contenxtual errors as I'm somewhat inebriated as I write this, but I hope that I concisely convey what I meant to say.
Click to expand...

No worries, G. I'm somewhat inebriated as I read this. :D (truthfully)

Doc
 
Glad I'm not drinking alone then, and thanks for bringing "contenxtual" to my attention. What I meant to say was contextual :p

Gautier
 
IMO> When push comes to shove, most people will do whatever it takes to survive.
 
If I feel that my life and the lives of my family are in jeapardy, the regulations and civil laws, as well as criminal laws will cease to exist until such time as I am satisfied that my family and I, are no longer at risk. If someone is to pay for those decisions, then it will be me and my family will still have benefited, without prosecution or persecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top