have you got a boo-boo, baby?

i just saw one of the more asinine headlines on cnn while at the gym. (what are headlines called when they run across the bottom of the screen?) here's what it said:

"should swimming with sharks be banned?"

now, apart from being absolutely hilarious (should swallowing knives be banned? should eating chandeliers be banned? should sleeping on beds of nails be banned?), this question is apropos to the political discussion in which this nation is currently engaging. or, i should say, the utopian fantasy this that this nation is eagerly swallowing, hook, line, and sinker. and if we're going to understand where we're headed, we have to crack open this little chestnut.

what would make cnn think this question is even appropriate to ask? well, obviously, some idiot got ate. yes, the world is now one-sixth of the way to meeting its yearly quota of 1/1,000,000,000 of the world population
who die every year in shark attacks.

this guy was swimming in waters chummed with bloody fish parts and, lo and behold, a shark bit his leg off. our genius lawyer friend is fifty miles off the the sunshine state's coast. that's a one-hour hour boat ride, minimum. obviously, he buys his tickets before boarding the boat. let's put the time of purchase at least an hour before kick-off. i'm sure the crew and staff walks herr groh through a safety lecture including the same warning they post on their web page: Please be aware that these are not 'cage' dives, they are open water experiences. let's add a half-hour of pre-boarding time for the safety talk. finally, upon arriving at the diving site, it's likely that the crew chum the water while the divers assemble and safety-check their gear. you've got to let the chum dissipate a little so it doesn't get all over the divers, and so that the really big sharks can smell it and swim in. half-hour for that. finally, this guy watches crew divers jump in the water, the bloody water, without a cage. then he jumps in. no one pushes him. all told, our austrian friend has at least three hours to reconsider swimming unprotected with the meanest, dumbest and biggest carnivores in the ocean. and he decides to take the risk.

he decides to take the risk.

so, what grounds does the government have to ban an activity the risk of which the participant knowingly assumes?

first, protect the sharks. well, maybe. maybe the sharks are unhappy. i don't see how, what with the free meal and all. they're not getting killed. they are getting photographed, but scientists have conclusively proven that getting your picture taken does not rob you of your soul.

second, protect the diver. this is the tack that all such arguments take (e.g. the argument for universal health insurance); it's the most dangerous kind of argument and we don't seem to be getting it.

why do we need to protect the diver? because we feel bad for him, or because it costs the rest of us money? see, since we've decided to pay for everyone's healthcare (whether through private insurance or public, this sort of injury is covered: hospitals cannot turn people away who have sharkbites), we have to be able to say what sorts of risks they should be allowed to take. mark my words: the more control we give the government over healthcare, the more the nanny-statists will be able to tell us what we can and cannot do with our time (free or otherwise). no jaywalking. no trans-fats. no cholesterol. no smoking. wear your seatbelt. eat your vegetables. no swimming with sharks. no riding your bike without a helmet.

granted, many of the the things on that list are good things to do. smart for your body. but think: do we want the government telling us that we have to do them, under penalty of fines or jail time? well, it's going to happen. those of you who think the republicans want to take your liberties away to fight the war on terror (they do and it's bad) should stop to consider how your most-private liberties will be given up as you ask the government to take more and more control of your lives. as you ask the government to spend money on things, it will start to impose restrictions on spending and on behavior, just like a good parent. you will be told what kind of sex you can have. you will be told how many children you can bear. you will be told how many times you have to go to the doctor. you will be told what sort of vitamins you have to take. see, safety-nets affect risk-perception. people will do more risky things if they know they'll be cared for regardless. thus, the nanny draws lines.

in a world without universal healthcare, we currently have universal healthcare through tax-code enforcement and government entitlement programs, smokers might die earlier of lung cancer, people who swim with sharks might slowly bleed to death in the ocean, gastropods who gorge themselves on trans fats might trip their heart out at 30. in short, people would reap what they sow. but they would have the freedom to choose where to sow. (and the market and the world as God designed it would communicate risk so that people would probably engage in less risky behavior overall. water runs uphill. people by and large don't like to stick their hands into open fires.)

is that so bad? or do we want a big nanny to care for all our boo-boos? how many of your cherished freedoms are you willing to give up for socialized medicine?

all authority is God-appointed to bless or discipline God's people. we will need to honor whoever gets elected president. but will we be honoring a man who is appointed to discipline us or to bless us? who among the viable candidates is not an enemy of the church?