Antiseptic, Rehctub here.

I have two children, now adults and, both myself and my wife would never allow them to swim without adult supervision and hence, they survived.

I am sorry, but why should the whole of society continue to be restricted due to what is often the neglect of a supervising adult.

Besides, as a kid myself I was never allowed to swim anywhere other than a patrolled beach and, we were brought up to respect the laws, you know like, do as you are told, never cross the road if there was a crossing close by.

How many time do you see lazy parents crossing the road close to a crossing, often with kids at toe.

I have done nothing to deserve to have my rights errodded or removed.

It's easy to take extreme examples such as these and use them to bash whichever group you happen to dislike. I was amused to see some posters bashing civil rights activists with them, when it's usually civil rights activists protesting against further government incursion.

Cornflower, I see you paint some of those suggestions as being as ridiculous as the idea of banning water activities. By grouping all of them in there, I think you're trying to tar reasonable moves as outrageous, and you also misrepresent the debate about the Australian flag.

"- proposed swimming warnings and prohibition on unpatrolled beaches"

To an extent, this isn't a bad idea. Drownings kill more tourists in Australia than anything else. I'd agree with banning people from swimming at some beaches, but perhaps not all unpatrolled ones. People should face hefty penalties for swimming at known danger-spots.

" Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws (since found to have had no effect whatsoever in reducing gun crime);"

Brilliant piece of policy. Your assertion there needs a lot of backing, it's something that's incredibly difficult to prove. One of the few things Howard did I wholeheartedly agree with. I could just as easily say that there's been no more Port Arthur Massacres since then, but again, it's conjecture and ultimately that comment would be as unreliable as yours. Well, not quite. At least mine can't be directly disputed, other than it's bearing in relation to the argument.

"demand for more 'education' and tougher testing of new drivers, following the report of any nasty road accident involving youth;"

Depends on the testing. Again, not much with the details.

Cornflower, it may surprise you that I consider myself a libertarian. By and large, I think people should be allowed to do what they wish providing they're not hurting others. There are limits however, and a huge number of stupid people out there.

That being said, things need to be assessed on individual merit. And they need to be backed up.

Dear Anti,

I love your idea of banning baths for babies.
And substituting towellettes for cleaning
a bub. What a great idea - especially for
number threes.

But why stop at babies?

Think of the towellette business being extended
to include teenagers/adults as well. Afterall - there are
dangers for them as well - many have been known
to slip in the bath/shower. Ah, the odours of
gorganzola may take some getting used to ...

But think of the demand for air-freshners, perfumes,
and other toiletries - bring back medieval times -
and why not!

TRTL, "you also misrepresent the debate about the Australian flag."

No I did not, I said, "demand to change the national flag through the belief that all 'Aussies' must be racists and xenophobes because some fools used the flag inappropriately". Do you deny some used that reasoning?

TRTL, "I think you're trying to tar reasonable moves as outrageous"

No, I am making a plea for decisions to be supported by risk analysis and risk management rather than resort to risk avoidance, which is the basis for Nanny State regulation and loss of liberty.

I do not object to laws and my taxes being spent as long as there is concrete EVIDENCE of worthwhile improvement. As a libertarian you should understand that.

Moving on to the Howard gun laws. Since you obviously have made your mind up on the needs and the results, I am entitled to ask precisely what needs and outcome measures have you have based you judgement on? Nanny State laws so often come from the emotional reaction of the mob, led by sensationalist media reports.

In answer to your question, university research has been unable to find any evidence that the Howard gun buy-back and gun laws achieved any practical results at all. Here is an article from Time Magazine,

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

The Howard regulations only affected honest people, those who were already required to be of good character and could be relied upon to obtain a licence (and had one), buy only legal guns from a legal source, use them legally and so on. Had there been a comprehensive risk analysis instead of a heap of spin and blaming to cover the closure of mental health facilities and chopping of mental health budgets by State and federal governments.

Howard said no to a public inquiry, an election was imminent. But even when he went ahead with his 'initiative' a comprehensive risk analysis would have informed an entirely different approach and now we wouldn't have hundreds of trained police all around Australia shining chairs monitoring respectable licensed clay pigeon shooters instead of chasing crooks.

contd.,

TRTJ, "I consider myself a libertarian. By and large, I think people should be allowed to do what they wish providing they're not hurting others. There are limits however, and a huge number of stupid people out there."

"Huge number of stupid people"? Would a libertarian share your jaundiced opinion of the personal competence and judgement of others? Would he act upon that suspicion with new regulations (for the neighbour's good, naturally)? Or would a libertarian be more trusting and loath to enact restrictions and new laws, doing so only where it is absolutely essential?

Australia has thousands of kilometres of unpatrolled beaches, yet relatively few drownings have been reported over the years even in popular areas such Fraser Island, where the sun is hot, the beer is cold and holiday-makers are plentiful. You could put unsightly signs everywhere and maintain them at great cost, but how many lives would they save?

What I support is signage by exception and not by rule or because someone thought it was a good idea. For example, warning signage where conditions are very deceptive with hidden dangers above and beyond those normally expected for a surf beach in that locale and consequently where risk could easily be miss-read. Board riders and rock fishermen oppose interfering officialdom but even they support warnings in some places and so do I. The Surf Life Saving clubs can assess risk and make recommendations, but be aware, a sign doesn't reduce the risk.

Perhaps some warning signs are more aimed at protecting government against litigation.

To repeat, I am not opposed to laws nor to the expenditure of my taxes where worthwhile needs exist, provided that there is EVIDENCE of results attained. More laws and more expenditure should be the last resort not the first. It is absolute bunkum to introduce more and more laws because you or others regard your neighbour as a risk to you (why so?) or that you don't believe your neighbour is competent enough or or lacks your judgement.

Cornflower; Perhaps some warning signs are more aimed at protecting government against litigation.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

It is often about accountabillity, rather than addressing the problem.

Take a 'wet floor sign' in a shopping center. The problem has been detected, a sign has been placed, so, it's no longer my problem.

The floor is still wet, the slip hazard is still there, but hey, the buck has been passed on so it's back to business as usual for the one who placed the sign.

Then there is the other side of a warning sign, that being that the sign is an admision of a problem.

Now if you place a .no swimming sign' on a dangerous beach and, you don't patrol that beach to stop people swimming, then you may in fact in the wrong as you have admitted there is a problem.

A bit like a sign saying 'dangerous dog', sure you are warning about your dog, but you are also admitting it is dangerous.