Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/02/04/ ... by-safety/

Of course, a world with zero risk is also a world with zero anything, except maybe a phthalate-free, gender-neutral doll with no eyes. (Because these can be come detached, posing a choking hazard.) But when the government declares that we must live in a zero-risk world, it is free to outlaw almost any product or parenting practice it decides to set its sights on. And we have no recourse but to toss the toys we trust, the heirlooms we loved, and the age-old belief that if we train our kids to be brave and smart, we can gradually let them out to embrace the world, risk and all.

MSimon wrote:http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/02/04/ ... by-safety/

Of course, a world with zero risk is also a world with zero anything, except maybe a phthalate-free, gender-neutral doll with no eyes. (Because these can be come detached, posing a choking hazard.) But when the government declares that we must live in a zero-risk world, it is free to outlaw almost any product or parenting practice it decides to set its sights on. And we have no recourse but to toss the toys we trust, the heirlooms we loved, and the age-old belief that if we train our kids to be brave and smart, we can gradually let them out to embrace the world, risk and all.

That's something my lovely bride and I have been arguing about for about 15 years in respect to the one and only child. Her paranoia of packs of child-stealing predators roaming the country were perversely pushed by evening news, with an "Even a million to one risk is too much!" attitude being taken to not letting the little guy run around in the high wooden fenced locked-gate backyard with no supervision.

I've pushed for more and more over the years - encouraging him to take risks, encouraging my lovely bride to LET him take risks - and... he's doing pretty much okay. He's kinda risk-adverse, which I don't much like... but he's also mature enough to judge for himself the risks he wants to take. (Like flight training. Man, I wish the cost of avgas weren't so high...)

I think the biggest problem is that we've got far too many lawyers and far too many of them get into civil service, where they have to find things to occupy their time. And if something isn't regulated... doesn't it make sense to regulate it?

But the logical conclusion is, as you point out, establishing a zero-risk environment that doesn't do a blessed thing to prepare the child for the real world.

JLawson wrote:(Like flight training. Man, I wish the cost of avgas weren't so high...)

By far the cheapest way to do your flight training is to purchase the plane (especially now while the prices are rock bottom) and pick one that can use auto-gas such as Cessan 172. You can get a used Skyhawk for just a few thousand dollars and IIRC, they fly on auto-fuel. You can carry gas in 5 gal cans in any sedan trunk or pickup and refuel it yourself. 172's hold their value so long as they're maintained, but you should not look to sell a plane until the economy improves. By then your son should be ready to move on to a nicer plane.

JLawson wrote:Of course, a world with zero risk is also a world with zero anything, except maybe a phthalate-free, gender-neutral doll with no eyes. (Because these can be come detached, posing a choking hazard.) But when the government declares that we must live in a zero-risk world, it is free to outlaw almost any product or parenting practice it decides to set its sights on. And we have no recourse but to toss the toys we trust, the heirlooms we loved, and the age-old belief that if we train our kids to be brave and smart, we can gradually let them out to embrace the world, risk and all.

That's something my lovely bride and I have been arguing about for about 15 years in respect to the one and only child. Her paranoia of packs of child-stealing predators roaming the country were perversely pushed by evening news, with an "Even a million to one risk is too much!" attitude being taken to not letting the little guy run around in the high wooden fenced locked-gate backyard with no supervision.

I've pushed for more and more over the years - encouraging him to take risks, encouraging my lovely bride to LET him take risks - and... he's doing pretty much okay. He's kinda risk-adverse, which I don't much like... but he's also mature enough to judge for himself the risks he wants to take. (Like flight training. Man, I wish the cost of avgas weren't so high...)

I think the biggest problem is that we've got far too many lawyers and far too many of them get into civil service, where they have to find things to occupy their time. And if something isn't regulated... doesn't it make sense to regulate it?

But the logical conclusion is, as you point out, establishing a zero-risk environment that doesn't do a blessed thing to prepare the child for the real world.

Its cyclical. Generations of abandoned children will over-protect their own, and foster an attitude in society to match. Generations of coddled children, just the opposite. Enforcement of statute and acceptable behavior waxes and wanes with the societal attitude.

Consider - the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver" with a young Jodie Foster. The "child as young adult" + sexualized Lolita mentality on screen. Seven years later, the first freakouts at the McMartin Preschool begin. What happened in the interim? The early cohort of "latchkey" GenX hit young adulthood and parenthood, kicking the earlier generations into their next stages of life (Boomers into yuppie middle age, Silent into mature authority, Greatest into retirement). GenX as a group grew up abandoned while their Boomer and Silent parents were out "finding themselves." Conversely, the Silent grew up abandoned while their parents were out rebuilding and saving the world.

The mentality of GenX as a group fits the upbringing - individualist survivor, nihilist in youth transitioning to middle aged social builder for the last decade or so as the children of late-Boomers/early-Xer cohorts (the Millennials) have transitioned into young adulthood. The cohort-mentality of Millennials also fits the upbringing - raised protected, constantly told and reassured they're the greatest & the best. Parallel to the Greatest generation's upbringing, actually, just as Xers are parallel to the Lost generation who were the youth of the 1920s, the middle-managers of WW2, and the senior statesmen of "the '50s" (1946-'60).

Art to define GenX? In youth - Bill Paxton in "Aliens" (1986): "We're on an express elevator to hell; goin' DOWWWWWWN!" In middle age - the police-procedural show "Castle": Richard Castle as Xer's passing chaotic youth, Kate Beckett as nihilistic cynicism in maturity.

GIThruster wrote:

JLawson wrote:(Like flight training. Man, I wish the cost of avgas weren't so high...)

By far the cheapest way to do your flight training is to purchase the plane (especially now while the prices are rock bottom) and pick one that can use auto-gas such as Cessan 172. You can get a used Skyhawk for just a few thousand dollars and IIRC, they fly on auto-fuel. You can carry gas in 5 gal cans in any sedan trunk or pickup and refuel it yourself. 172's hold their value so long as they're maintained, but you should not look to sell a plane until the economy improves. By then your son should be ready to move on to a nicer plane.

That's something I've thought about, actually. Several times, but I can't make the numbers work for us.

Prices may be rock-bottom - but we're more around the gravel level, and what we could afford, from Trade-A-Plane for example, would need insurance, significant maintenance before it'd be safe to fly, ongoing maintenance, tiedown space, gas to get the thing local as well as a pilot to fly it - and while leasing it to an FBO flight school MIGHT be an option so they take care of things, I'm more comfortable scraping up the cost of a flight lesson every month or two and letting someone else deal with the ownership issues.

Thank you for the suggestion though. I keep hoping to win the lottery, then I could go out to the EMC2 folks and say "How much do you need?" as well as indulging the son... but after reviewing the odds do you think it'd substantially increase my chances much if I bought a ticket?

JLawson wrote:. . .but after reviewing the odds do you think it'd substantially increase my chances much if I bought a ticket?

Not really, though I will own that I purchased my first and only lottery ticket a few months back on an impulse, and it was worth the buck for the adrenaline rush as the first 3 numbers were the same as the winner. I can see how and why it's so addictive despite you have to plan on losing.

Yes, all these costs you count are serious costs. The issue is that whomever owns the plane needs to pay them. It is a lot of extra work to own a plane, as with most toys. I could tell you long stories about boats too. However, owning has the benefit that you get all the experience of ownership, which is much more than rental. Having to tie down your own plane actually does matter.

Have you looked at any of the newer sport pilot planes? The little guys with 110 HPO engines max I think? ought to have much lower ownership costs, and some of them are pretty cool. Last I checked, there were a handful coming out of Eastern europe with great reviews.

Of course the cheapest route is get your son into the USAF academy and let them train him to fly. Then you don't have to pay for college either.

GIThruster wrote:

JLawson wrote:. . .but after reviewing the odds do you think it'd substantially increase my chances much if I bought a ticket?

Not really, though I will own that I purchased my first and only lottery ticket a few months back on an impulse, and it was worth the buck for the adrenaline rush as the first 3 numbers were the same as the winner. I can see how and why it's so addictive despite you have to plan on losing.

Yes, all these costs you count are serious costs. The issue is that whomever owns the plane needs to pay them. It is a lot of extra work to own a plane, as with most toys. I could tell you long stories about boats too. However, owning has the benefit that you get all the experience of ownership, which is much more than rental. Having to tie down your own plane actually does matter.

Have you looked at any of the newer sport pilot planes? The little guys with 110 HPO engines max I think? ought to have much lower ownership costs, and some of them are pretty cool. Last I checked, there were a handful coming out of Eastern europe with great reviews.

Of course the cheapest route is get your son into the USAF academy and let them train him to fly. Then you don't have to pay for college either.

Eyesight's not good enough - and he's got no desire to go into the military. Though I HAVE suggested it.

I've looked at the newer Sport Pilot planes - but again, the numbers (IE income vs outgo) simply don't allow it for us. The initial cost is the killer. That, and justifying something like that to my lovely bride. I can already imagine her response to a unilateral decision!