I am going to write some thoughts here that will probably be misinterpreted. But try to understand me.
I think it is great that the fellow who thought he could safely take his boat through Queen Charlotte Strait this winter was free to try it. I am very grateful he did not die. But I am especially gratified that there was no authority blocking him from the attempt. That spirit of adventure, being allowed to express itself, to me, is the only thing that makes life worth living.
Now the flip side: I am very sad to see that a Coast Guardsman lost his life from the results of an accident during a rescue this week. http://www.adn.com/2013/12/18/3237396/c ... k=misearch So how do you weigh the freedom for people to live their own lives against the lives they put into jeopardy when they need help?
Someone could use the results of the winter voyage to argue that all captains should be required to be licensed, etc. But in the end, I believe that is a fallacy. It certainly looks like that captain had enough experience that he could have gotten whatever license he needed. So would that regulation have altered the outcome? I don't think it would, but it would have placed undue burden on a lot of people who are trying to captain their own boat.
Anyway, early on in "Moby Dick" the author gave the example of when he catches himself "looking too longingly at the hearse going by" that he signs on for a whaling trip. In other words, when life has gotten so miserable that he is vaguely contemplating suicide, that he instead antes up for a big adventure. Life once again becomes an exciting challenge, and he is living robustly. Do those who favor regulations understand that? That there are those of us, who if you put us in a padded cell of regulations to prolong our lives, would rather not live at all?
I guess all I can conclude for now is that we should all do our damndest to keep ourselves safe while we live our adventures so others don't feel compelled to do it for us.