What risks do you take walking out the door, and from what should the government protect you?

[RandomAnthony]

There's a big fight in my town about dogs now because some guy got caught on a leash while riding his bike and wiped out. Also, some dogs fought at a local festival. I live in a small town with a local government board who seems to use the "put out the fire" strategy in this scenarios. So, for example, one dog fight at a festival and it's "no dogs at festivals". So there's a big letter-war going on in the local paper, and one of the people on the local government board said, at a meeting, "Listen. You take a risk when you walk out of your door. Something can happen. The government can't protect you from everything."

I agree. So...from what should the government try to protect you, and what's a reasonable line between citizen risk/oversight?

(I'm pro-festival dog, by the way)

[janine]

it's festival-loving dog! the one and only!

[Jane]

I'm definitely pro-festival dog too. A Government should try to protect it's citizens from unforeseeable risks and by that I mean, risks that wouldn't be part of your everyday life. In actual fact, an individual needs to take responsiblilty more for themselves and ensure they stay as safe as they can to a point. I mean, if I don't look when I cross the road and get hit by a bus then it's really my own fault..crossing roads being an everyday hazard. In other scenarios though-for instance a terrorist attack then the government should be putting measures and law enforcement in place to protect it's citizens more robustly.
I do think the government/society in general is very domineering when it comes to issues that really should be my individual choice-eg) discouraging smoking, ensuring alcohol sales are not below a certain price, saying that you shouldn't eat this that and the other as you'll become obese etc. These things should all be left to the individual. Also, things like campaigns around christmas for girls to ensure they watch their drinks (stay safe, etc)-these really irritate me, making it my responsibility not to be raped, not the police's responsibility to protect me. Anyway, sorry for rambling on-hope some of that made some vague sense.

[Sarah]

Is anybody protecting the dogs from the festival goers? Poor Bo had a child stick a pinwheel in his ear before I could stop the kid. It's part of why he distrusts children now.

[Sarah]

But I thought bike paths were the first step toward turning the US into a United Nations-run communist state. At least according to that guy running for office in Colorado.

[[deleted user]]

I love the fact that Bun tries to bring logic into a discussion concerning the government :).

[[deleted user]]

BunWat wrote: "Well sure, but I'm just a recidivist trying to resist the inevitable march of progress, clearly I need re education in order to understand the true democratic utility of living in antibacterial ham..."

My thoughts exactly!

[RandomAnthony]

I may have said this before, forgive me if I have, please. I was once in a community meeting where a small group of people were protesting a bike path running behind their houses. One woman said the bike path would lead to an increase in crime. What, those people riding past on expensive bikes, wearing bright, tight clothing are going to load your tv in their fanny packs and speed away?

[janine]

did you not know bicycling is really a front for stealing? that's how people pay for those expensive bikes.

[RandomAnthony]

They're like a street gang from The Warriors.

Cannnnyouuuuudiggggittt...

[[ JT ]]

RandomAnthony wrote: "I may have said this before, forgive me if I have, please. I was once in a community meeting where a small group of people were protesting a bike path running behind their houses. One woman said ..."


I think the point this woman was trying to make (though, not making very well) is that a path like that could be used for criminals to case houses at night. People won't be biking during the night, but there is now a nice long path with a view of the backs of an entire neighborhood.

[RandomAnthony]

Is that a good enough reason not to have a bike path, though? Should bike paths not exist that go behind houses because criminals might use them?

[RandomAnthony]

Hm. I guess maybe since we live in a small town without much crime I'm underestimating this concern. But...I go back to my question...if you had a choice, the possibility of stolen bikes or no bike path...I think I'd go with the bike path and lock up my bikes.

[RandomAnthony]

This reminds me of something in my neighborhood that I suppose will change eventually. When the kids ride their bikes to the local elementary school they just sort of lean them against the school or in the bike rack. No one locks them. And I don't know any have been stolen. I love that.

[Jackie "the Librarian"]

Lazy thieves! Tsk! How will they ever make it up the ladder in the crime world if they don't show some initiative?

[Kevin]

they won't become hard working thieves as long as they keep getting unemployment extensions

[[deleted user]]

Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "they won't become hard working thieves as long as they keep getting unemployment extensions"

Its called supplemental income Kevin.

[Phil]

Wouldn't a bike path make the would-be thieves feel more exposed when traipsing behind the houses? I would think they'd want bushes and trees to skulk around behind.