There Are Good Regulations And Bad Regulations
Great post by somebody who just calls himself M.S. at The Economist, who the state won't let swim beyond the designated swimming area in Massachusetts, and whose daughter swims in the Amstel River in Amsterdam, right in the city limits, with no problem or hassle from anyone:
So, here's a regulation I hate: you're not allowed to swim across the lake anymore in Massachusetts state parks. You have to stay inside the dinky little waist-deep swimming areas, with their bobbing lines of white buoys. There you are, under a deep blue New England summer sky, the lake laid out like a mirror in front of you and the rocks on the far shore gleaming under a bristling comb of red pine; you plunge in, strike out across the water, and tweet! A parks official blows his whistle and shouts after you. "Sir! Sir! Get back inside the swimming area!" What is this, summer camp? Henry David Thoreau never had to put up with this. It offends the dignity of man and nature. You want to shout, with Andy Samberg: "I'm an adult!"...The park officials in Massachusetts aren't really trying to minimise the risk that you might drown. They're trying to minimise the risk that you might sue. The problem here, as Mr Howard says, isn't simply over-regulation as such. It's a culture of litigiousness and a refusal to accept personal responsibility. When some of the public behave like children, we all get a nanny state.
Why does he let his daughter swim in the Amstel?
...I'm pretty sure that in a well-regulated country like the Netherlands, the water is reasonably free of heavy pollutants and raw sewage. (I would not, for example, let her swim in the Mekong.) This, I think, outlines a useful distinction between different kinds of regulation. I am perfectly capable of assessing for myself the risks of swimming across a small pond in Massachusetts, or the risks of swimming in the Amstel when lots of boat traffic is around. I don't need regulations to protect me; I have common sense. What I can't assess for myself is the risk that the water is contaminated by raw sewage. For that, I need a regulatory agency that stops households and businesses from polluting the river. To generalise: for risks I can assess myself, I don't want regulations that prevent me from doing as I please just because I might end up suing the government. For risks I can't assess myself, I do want regulations that give me the confidence to do as I please. One kind of regulation stops me from swimming in a pond in Massachusetts. The other kind lets me swim in a river in the Netherlands. One kind of regulation makes me less free. The other kind makes me freer.
Commenter bonafides has a niggle or two:
First, the regulation about the swimming area is a straw man. A libertarian would note that this "regulation" is really a "rule" imposed by the owner. That is, if I own a lake (unlikely, but let's suspend disbelief) and you want to swim in it, I might allow you to, but insist that you stay in the safer shallower water near the lifeguards.A "regulation" would be a State law that says that all owners of lakes must impose "safe swimming areas" with annual inspections, certifications and taxes (etc) on "public safety" grounds. Such a regulation would also state that it cannot be contracted out of by a responsible willing adult.
Secondly, your counterpoint (the clean water regulation) is something a libertarian could agree to, as preventing a provable negative externality.
via @WalterOlson
My parents have a house on a MA lake. There's a dinky swimming area in one corner of the lake, 2 parks, and a bunch of private homes.
The people in the private homes and their guests always swim across, no problem.
The people at the dinky swim area are generally families with small children who want lifeguards.
Everyone else just swims at the parks, as far as they like. Every so often a cop will come by and half-heartedly yell at them, they get out, the cop drives off, and everyone gets in again. It's a bit idiotic, but the fact is this rule doesn't stop anyone from swimming if they want to.
Every decade or so someone drowns. This has only every happened, to my knowledge, in the middle of the night, to a drunk person.
Same with Walden pond. If you go to the dinky swim area, you are stuck there. If you walk half a mile you get to any one of a number of coves where you can just hop in and swim. Unlike the more inhabited lake of my parents' suburb, the cops can't drive by because you are in the middle of the woods.
So yeah, these rules exist, but I get the feeling they exist more so the city/state don't get sued. No one seems to care seriously about enforcing them. They're token laws.
So fear not. If you want to swim in MA, go for it.
NicoleK at August 26, 2010 2:34 AM
BTW lifeguards can't arrest you. Neither can municipal police arrest you for swimming, as the lake is technically state property. So unless they call out the state troopers...
NicoleK at August 26, 2010 2:36 AM
I life-guarded in MA for a number of years. Some pool-side, some in the harbor where I lived.
The harbor, which was accessible to the general public, had a swimming area that people had to stay inside and boats had to stay out of. I feel that if someone wants to swim through designated boating channels they're pretty fucking dumb - but they can go for it. If they get hit, though, it's not the captains fault for not seeing someone who dons a black swim cap. Likewise, don't expect me to put my life in danger to save your fat ass...which will then turn around and sue me (...or the town which employs me). But it doesn't work that way.
If there was no white rope and no rule keeping people w/in a certain distance, how far out from shore does a guard's responsibility extend? If it's 50 feet do we put up buoys and a sign that says "swim past this point at your own risk"? Will you sign a waiver that says if you do, you cannot sue? B/c I guarantee if someone gets a cramp past the point of no return and no rescue attempt is made by the guards there will be hell to pay.
It's not just the nannyment trying to control you. It's trying to protect boaters from your lawsuits if they hurt you and to protect the town employees charged with your safety whilst swimming within their field of vision. This issue migrates from "let me do what I want to" protecting others from your likely stupidity (b/c ever single day at least 2 people would swim out into the harbor and a kayak or two steamroll into a crowd of kids swimming). I don't want to have to worry about you when you're putting yourself in direct danger!
Oh and yeah a guard cannot arrest you. But a guard can call the harbor master who can.
Gretchen at August 26, 2010 5:38 AM
OK, but a harbor is a different thing than a small pond like Walden!
NicoleK at August 26, 2010 12:57 PM
From the article:
"And to pull back one more level, I think another thing that makes people feel freer to do things like swim in a river is the confidence that if anything goes wrong, they have health insurance."
Have you ever been too deep? Do you know that feeling as you're swimming for the surface, but it isn't coming fast enough? That last breath is gone and you've got to begin the unnatural process of breathing out as you are running out of breath? The surface is right there, dear god it seems like 10 feet, but it isn't closing fast enough and those last few seconds you are sure you're not going to make it. Well relax, it doesn't matter if you make it to the surface or not, you've got health insurance! Go on, inhale a gulp.
I'm not buying it.
smurfy at August 26, 2010 2:21 PM
So smurfy, you almost drown once or grab that decription form someone else?
lujlp at August 27, 2010 11:36 AM
Leave a comment