Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Completely agree with this article. America is not free anymore, and it makes me ill.

I do the same as this guy. I break minor laws when I feel it's unjust. I never hurt anybody nor the environment with anything I do along these lines.

For example, when I was in college, we had set up a rope swing way back in the woods. It was "illegal," but it was not hurting anybody or anything. It got found by some idiots and cut down multiple times. We just kept stringing it back up and having fun.

I also jump off of safe bridges that are "illegal." I just don't see why they make them illegal in the first place. They aren't in a location where my fun would disturb anyone, I make sure to scout the area for logs, shrapnel, etc... Nobody gets hurt, nothing is harmed, and I just don't understand the need for these types of restrictions.

The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew the restrictions put on the people of "America" today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
Europeans laugh at us. We put up signs telling us to keep safe. Then, when people get injured they sue as if it's someone else's fault. The European culture is, "you jumped, you pay." The culture shift for us, then, is to enforce personal responsibility. If you push me off the bridge then I was wrongfully accosted. If I jump then I was rightfully responsible. It's the same for skiing out of bounds.

The primary justification for restriction is that if you do get injured you might put others at risk if they need to rescue you. As a former member of a volunteer SAR team I can say that 99% of the rescues were due to accident. That 1% was due to stupidity and while I never perceived any undue hazards I know of incidents where rescuers died because someone skied out of bounds or jumped off a bridge or what ever. It's common for EMS to get injured just getting to the scene of any accident.

Now, boating in banned places takes on a little different angle. Private property or the infamous Yellowstone River? Those infractions are founded in two different aspects of law, the former being a HUGE issue that needs addressing and the later being a HUGE issue that really seems a no-brainer. Boat it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
We live in a culture of litigation. And so exactly, no one is willing to allow anyone else any personal freedoms of judgment. It's frustrating, having to deal always with the mass culture's lowest common denominator.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Caspermike... the words and logic of Henry David Thoreau are calling you. Read Civil Disobedience. MLK found inspiration in his words, and then went on to dismantle the laws of segregation. You, my young Jedi boater, may find inspiration in his words and use them to help dismantle the unjust man-made laws that segregate us boaters from enjoying beautiful rivers.

MLK wrote.. "The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.... Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

Moral law dictates, that as a boater and lover of rivers, it is just for us to boat the rivers that are banned by unjust man-made laws because it uplifts our personalities. Being prohibited from enjoying these rivers is degrading to our personalities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Its not just degrading our personalities but the Constitution as well. The problem Jedi Night is that it cant be won alone. There needs to be an uprising for our land of Jah!

I have some ideas... Live Free

Thanks for that aswell Mark
os.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Your welcome, Mike. Thanks for posting this article. And for passing the .... my way.

And I have this feeling you wouldn't be alone if you decided to live free and boat down a closed river...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
rivervibe said:
We live in a culture of litigation. And so exactly, no one is willing to allow anyone else any personal freedoms of judgment. It's frustrating, having to deal always with the mass culture's lowest common denominator.
According to my Swiss aunt, the reason Americans are so litigious and always looking to sue someone while Europeans take responsibility for their own actions is due to the roots of our legal systems. American law is rooted in a different philosophy than European law. Like Greek vs Roman or something like that. Any Layers out there that can tell us why ours is so messed up? It is amazing that we call ourselves the land of the free with all the idiotic rules we have to save us from ourselves. Avoiding liability is the law of the land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Back in the south we've had a big issue with the 0 sections of the Chattooga... basically the trout lobby kept us out, even though the times when the water is boatable correlates negatively to good ( or decent) fishing.

I may be making furtive solo trips soon, as my 'rents live 15 minutes from there... (looks over shoulder).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
According to my Swiss aunt, the reason Americans are so litigious and always looking to sue someone while Europeans take responsibility for their own actions is due to the roots of our legal systems. American law is rooted in a different philosophy than European law. Like Greek vs Roman or something like that. Any Layers out there that can tell us why ours is so messed up? It is amazing that we call ourselves the land of the free with all the idiotic rules we have to save us from ourselves. Avoiding liability is the law of the land.
I don't wonder that it has something to do with privatization (deep pockets). If the system is set up such that the family farm is not seizable because grandpa is caught stealing horses then then the legal recourse is to the individual. Here, however, everything private is up for grabs and people go after the big money. I'm not suggesting it's right or good or anything, just my thoughts that the legal system is always after "compensation" because it can get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
It's a good article. I like his use of Kant and the test of "would it still be okay if everyone did it?" That's the lynchpin to the article.

The problem is that most "illegal" acts are just selfishness disguised. If you do something, then shouldn't I be able to as well? And then if everyone does it, will it end up harming all users?

As far as poaching rivers... I think those select rivers are really limited to be run by a select few boaters. So if you poach, say, the Yellowstone... not everyone is going to rush out and do it. So in my opinion you're fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
The reason for over litigation in this country is due to the over abundance of lawyers. If your in a market that is over saturated you have to get creative You find different ways to sue people, advertise that the people have been treated unjustly and that you as a lawyer can help them get rich because of this. You then sue, maybe win, then the lawyer gets half or you owe them for their time spent regardless. It's a win win for the lawyer.
Our system should be designed that if you sue someone and you lose then your responsible for both parties legal fees. This would drastically cut frivolous lawsuits. However, since our country is run by lawyers, they will never change our legal system because it serves them. Instead our politicians look to change things such as a our healthcare system which is over priced. However this is largely due to all the ambulance chasers out there looking to sue Dr's, hospitals, and medical device companies every chance perceived or real. In turn jacking up the cost of healthcare.
Sorry felt the need to rant a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
If you were to require that the losing party pay...

for both lawyers, you would preclude the majority of Americans from the right to legitimately sue any powerful organization in the wrong, as even the remote possibility of losing the case would result in more financial catastrophe than the average American could pull through. It simply cannot be that way and be just... The reciprocal, however, is admittedly almost worse.

As far as the article, I thought the fishing without a license with your son and hopping fences to steal apples or get a better view marred an otherwise intriguing article ("I tried, really" said it all on the fishing part). Where I am from, the "hopping the fence for a better view" (with a video camera) cost us reasonable access to a very cool creek. And, hey, if you want apples, get some land and grow 'em. Stealing anything from another person is just plain wrong, regardless of whether they have plenty. Talk about a slippery slope, Robin Hood.

Now go get the Black Canyon and jump off the bridge... I do believe strongly in the right to adventure and total personal responsibility for adventurous types of actions... I would be happy to pay a significant rescue insurance policy premium, if it meant access to backcountry Yellowstone and many, many more areas that are off-limits to numerous disciplines that do not negatively impact the areas travelled through.

Interesting read. Thanks, Mike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
Bryan said:
The reason for over litigation in this country is due to the over abundance of lawyers. If your in a market that is over saturated you have to get creative You find different ways to sue people, advertise that the people have been treated unjustly and that you as a lawyer can help them get rich because of this. You then sue, maybe win, then the lawyer gets half or you owe them for their time spent regardless. It's a win win for the lawyer.
Our system should be designed that if you sue someone and you lose then your responsible for both parties legal fees. This would drastically cut frivolous lawsuits. However, since our country is run by lawyers, they will never change our legal system because it serves them. Instead our politicians look to change things such as a our healthcare system which is over priced. However this is largely due to all the ambulance chasers out there looking to sue Dr's, hospitals, and medical device companies every chance perceived or real. In turn jacking up the cost of healthcare.
Sorry felt the need to rant a little.
I think the lawyer fees in a settlement should be capped at a lower percentage. Make them think long and hard about which suits they want to pursue at what cost
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
If you put caps on settlements then corporations can simply index in legal fees as a cost of doing business, and ultimately pass that cost onto consumers.I agree with capping lawyers fees and amounts for 'pain and suffering 'or other nonquantifiable damages, but not the overall settlement.The difference shoud go into a general public fund to be transparently managed to pay legal costs passed on to the public.

The reason our society is so litigious is in part due to the pervasive 'fast buck mentality '. Most people seek easy money by any legal means, regardless of ethicality.Our culture has so perverted the definitions of work and earning, and removed the correlation between honest direct effort /contribution and compensation that people feel entitled to sieze any opportunity to get their windfall.

I intend to boat some restricted runs in a certain Central American country.One involves just running through an upscale resort /playground of the rich and famous, they may not care and I may not sack up to the drop.There is a protected natural area that is off limits to all but scientists, bug there are immigrant squatters and international timber. concessions operating outside their boundaries, so a hosted exploring should be least of. their concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
(Continued) having some editng trouble, meant to say a kayaker exploring should be the least of their concerns.Then there are dams blocking an awesome river and complicating finishing a run on a spectacular tributary. Also want to get at a micro creek just across a border from a village that serves as a put in for a popular river.I would gladly pay the border fees and obey the rules., but there is no nearby border station and doing it legally would involve time consuming and costly hassles versus just just hiking a couple miles across an unpatrolled border in the middle of nowhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
I hear ya! It drives me crazy that these rivers are "closed". If a guy wants to waterski on flat water, there should be nothing to stop him. Upstream jet-boat on the Grand would be kick-a**!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top