Thank you for writing this. I've been on about this for years and I am glad for you to put it out there. Talking about "safety" is code for "you should be afraid. if you're not, you haven't thought about the risks for long enough." There's a story I'll tell in my book about a small shiny memory I keep in my pocket. When I first started baking bread for sale it was from an outdoor clay oven in a town park. Two others in town already baked on other days, so I picked Monday. The health department caught the aroma of fresh bread--likely an email complaint from someone in town--and came on my bake day(pre-announced) to "inspect." I offered the bread as a gift that day and they couldn't shut me down. And then they got so much pressure--think pitch forks--from people in town not to mess up their community scene that they tucked tail and left town, saying "It doesn't have a roof over it so it isn't under our jurisdiction." If people band together to protect their community life from the state there are often ways for the inspectors to politely excuse themselves.
That is a wonderful (and humorous) story Adam! Thank you for sharing it. It is delightful to hear of the triumph of the community over state bureaucracy. Too much good and beauty has been lost due to safetyism. It is well past time that we started to push back.
It is absolutely about being afraid. Can this brand of fearfulness and independent/critical thinking co-exist? I think not. It’s about our primal brain superseding other essential faculties.
This incisive article gives food for thought on several subjects.
1.
Generation after generation, we are trading the freedom to take risks, for safety.
When I was nine, I used to commute to school by local train and tram on my own, and came back home wearing the key on a ribbon on my neck. Nowadays, a parent or a caregiver must walk a child under ten to and from school. Good or bad? It should be left more to the parents' decision, weighed on the child's disposition and the distance to school, rather than to an arbitrary regulation.
2.
Rules and regulations are supposed to guarantee safety, or reduce harm to the environment, or improve working conditions. But sometimes, they are rather outcomes of hidden agendas of immoral lobbyists. This was the case with tobacco products, which harmful effect on human health was forcibly kept concealed for long after it had been known among the physicians. Inscrutable regulations in the pharmaceutical industry enshrine profits of big companies, and hamper the distribution of cheaper generic drug equivalents.
3.
In the more and more complex world we will perhaps face more and more regulations. The only hope I see is in the responsibility and moral integrity of the legislators, which we can make more popular by education and voting. I believe we can exert great influence with our small, everyday choices, provided that the number of people brave to do so will grow. The first step is to turn back on the cult of unrestricted economical growth and on monopolies. It may start with staunch refusal to buy on the "Dreaded Company Named After a Rainforest / a Great River".
Re: Your 3rd point: Another small, everyday choice could be eschewing the “Stay safe” phrase when parting with friends, family and acquaintances. No thank you, I’d rather live a little and do my own risk analysis, experiencing variety, aesthetic beauty and more that hasn’t been sterilized.
These little things add up, as language is culture and culture is language.
I hate it when people tell me to "Be safe"! If I'm about to drive at high speed on the freeway, they could say, "Drive safely," right? It's insane to think that we can guarantee our own safety.
Depending on the person I'm talking to, if I feel the need to say something other than "See you later," I've taken to saying "Have courage!" And to my grandchildren, I add, "Be good." The latter was what people used to tell me when I was a child. I'm leery these days of even saying, "Have fun!"
Regulation has always been an incestuous relationship between government and big business, each yearning to grow bigger at the expense of the smalls. The saps have good intentions.
This was such a great article! We're so inundated by ugly regulations that we barely even notice them anymore. This article is so well thought out, charitable (even to the big guys), and true. There just doesn't seem a way to incentivize politicians to pass legislature that helps us little guys, incentivizes small growth, or cut legislation. Big business always cuts up competition, and part of that is by paying politicians the most to regulate their competition out of business, and so one hand washes the other to all of us little people's harm. Also, as far as the unknown unknowns goes, the assumption is that the little guy will cut corners and harm us all, so they need to be regulated at an unbearable standard. Whereas just the opposite is true. It's more often the big companies that cut corners to everybody's detriment, for the most part, as you show so well. Last thought, we need to decentralize, put more power and financial wherewithal into the hands of individuals, but how that's done is the trouble, as it doesn't behoove those in power to simply give it away. A good example of this is term limits in American politics. There should be term limits for how long you can serve in government so the state doesn't get overly bloated by self serving politicians. Who is in charge of establishing term limits, though? The same politicians who would be negatively impacted by such legislation. It's always the same with the relation of big and small, big helps big and the small shrink smaller. Thanks for this great article, though.
This is such a great comment, thank you Andrew! I am so glad you found what I wrote helpful. You raise some excellent points that I can sense have been borne from experience. The need for decentralisation is something I heartily agree with - how to put this into practice, like you, say is another matter. But its needs to be done/we need to find a way. Otherwise the big and powerful will get ever stronger. They operate most effectively at the brad scale (national and international - hence they need power and politicians to also have this focus, hence the drive to centralise everything.
Great read. Aligns with my thinking. The push to keep everyone safe reduces our food security. The large processors become a bottleneck in times of crisis. Small decentralized producers and processors ensure food security and reduce overall risk of shortage.
This is something I always say. Regulations won't necessarily stop big companies from doing the wrong thing, but they will make it hard (or impossible) for small businesses to simply do their job.
In an age where most people guide themselves by what others say, the easy thing to do is to leave the important decisions to the government. I just wish people would take a little more responsibility over their lives. It's good to know some still believe in that.
And the In -gate- stone struggles made me smile. There are plenty of excruciatingly difficult to pronounce place names in Britain! Just ask a foreigner to pronounce Leicester or Gloucester!
Ah! That wooden box rule is infuriating. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bored-brush legislation like what is proposed with our caveats and exemptions is bound to lead to unfair decisions and tradition erosion. Let's hope the bureaucrats see sense this time.
Hadden,
Thank you for writing this. I've been on about this for years and I am glad for you to put it out there. Talking about "safety" is code for "you should be afraid. if you're not, you haven't thought about the risks for long enough." There's a story I'll tell in my book about a small shiny memory I keep in my pocket. When I first started baking bread for sale it was from an outdoor clay oven in a town park. Two others in town already baked on other days, so I picked Monday. The health department caught the aroma of fresh bread--likely an email complaint from someone in town--and came on my bake day(pre-announced) to "inspect." I offered the bread as a gift that day and they couldn't shut me down. And then they got so much pressure--think pitch forks--from people in town not to mess up their community scene that they tucked tail and left town, saying "It doesn't have a roof over it so it isn't under our jurisdiction." If people band together to protect their community life from the state there are often ways for the inspectors to politely excuse themselves.
That is a wonderful (and humorous) story Adam! Thank you for sharing it. It is delightful to hear of the triumph of the community over state bureaucracy. Too much good and beauty has been lost due to safetyism. It is well past time that we started to push back.
It is absolutely about being afraid. Can this brand of fearfulness and independent/critical thinking co-exist? I think not. It’s about our primal brain superseding other essential faculties.
This incisive article gives food for thought on several subjects.
1.
Generation after generation, we are trading the freedom to take risks, for safety.
When I was nine, I used to commute to school by local train and tram on my own, and came back home wearing the key on a ribbon on my neck. Nowadays, a parent or a caregiver must walk a child under ten to and from school. Good or bad? It should be left more to the parents' decision, weighed on the child's disposition and the distance to school, rather than to an arbitrary regulation.
2.
Rules and regulations are supposed to guarantee safety, or reduce harm to the environment, or improve working conditions. But sometimes, they are rather outcomes of hidden agendas of immoral lobbyists. This was the case with tobacco products, which harmful effect on human health was forcibly kept concealed for long after it had been known among the physicians. Inscrutable regulations in the pharmaceutical industry enshrine profits of big companies, and hamper the distribution of cheaper generic drug equivalents.
3.
In the more and more complex world we will perhaps face more and more regulations. The only hope I see is in the responsibility and moral integrity of the legislators, which we can make more popular by education and voting. I believe we can exert great influence with our small, everyday choices, provided that the number of people brave to do so will grow. The first step is to turn back on the cult of unrestricted economical growth and on monopolies. It may start with staunch refusal to buy on the "Dreaded Company Named After a Rainforest / a Great River".
Let's buy locally, starting today.
Re: Your 3rd point: Another small, everyday choice could be eschewing the “Stay safe” phrase when parting with friends, family and acquaintances. No thank you, I’d rather live a little and do my own risk analysis, experiencing variety, aesthetic beauty and more that hasn’t been sterilized.
These little things add up, as language is culture and culture is language.
This is a great point
I hate it when people tell me to "Be safe"! If I'm about to drive at high speed on the freeway, they could say, "Drive safely," right? It's insane to think that we can guarantee our own safety.
Depending on the person I'm talking to, if I feel the need to say something other than "See you later," I've taken to saying "Have courage!" And to my grandchildren, I add, "Be good." The latter was what people used to tell me when I was a child. I'm leery these days of even saying, "Have fun!"
Nice idea, Have courage indeed! How about Stand firm, stand fast or stand tall!
Those are good ideas, too. <3
Regulation has always been an incestuous relationship between government and big business, each yearning to grow bigger at the expense of the smalls. The saps have good intentions.
This was such a great article! We're so inundated by ugly regulations that we barely even notice them anymore. This article is so well thought out, charitable (even to the big guys), and true. There just doesn't seem a way to incentivize politicians to pass legislature that helps us little guys, incentivizes small growth, or cut legislation. Big business always cuts up competition, and part of that is by paying politicians the most to regulate their competition out of business, and so one hand washes the other to all of us little people's harm. Also, as far as the unknown unknowns goes, the assumption is that the little guy will cut corners and harm us all, so they need to be regulated at an unbearable standard. Whereas just the opposite is true. It's more often the big companies that cut corners to everybody's detriment, for the most part, as you show so well. Last thought, we need to decentralize, put more power and financial wherewithal into the hands of individuals, but how that's done is the trouble, as it doesn't behoove those in power to simply give it away. A good example of this is term limits in American politics. There should be term limits for how long you can serve in government so the state doesn't get overly bloated by self serving politicians. Who is in charge of establishing term limits, though? The same politicians who would be negatively impacted by such legislation. It's always the same with the relation of big and small, big helps big and the small shrink smaller. Thanks for this great article, though.
This is such a great comment, thank you Andrew! I am so glad you found what I wrote helpful. You raise some excellent points that I can sense have been borne from experience. The need for decentralisation is something I heartily agree with - how to put this into practice, like you, say is another matter. But its needs to be done/we need to find a way. Otherwise the big and powerful will get ever stronger. They operate most effectively at the brad scale (national and international - hence they need power and politicians to also have this focus, hence the drive to centralise everything.
I agree completely. Thank you for this article! You know, I've tried writing like this, but I'm always so clumsy. Great writing and great points!
Great read. Aligns with my thinking. The push to keep everyone safe reduces our food security. The large processors become a bottleneck in times of crisis. Small decentralized producers and processors ensure food security and reduce overall risk of shortage.
This is something I always say. Regulations won't necessarily stop big companies from doing the wrong thing, but they will make it hard (or impossible) for small businesses to simply do their job.
In an age where most people guide themselves by what others say, the easy thing to do is to leave the important decisions to the government. I just wish people would take a little more responsibility over their lives. It's good to know some still believe in that.
And the In -gate- stone struggles made me smile. There are plenty of excruciatingly difficult to pronounce place names in Britain! Just ask a foreigner to pronounce Leicester or Gloucester!
Ah! That wooden box rule is infuriating. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bored-brush legislation like what is proposed with our caveats and exemptions is bound to lead to unfair decisions and tradition erosion. Let's hope the bureaucrats see sense this time.