Search:
Main Menu
Login | RSS |

Safety Mania

October 1st, 2012 by Viv

Viv Forbes
Written 6 April 1992

“A new source of power… called gasoline has been produced by a Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is exploded inside the cylinder of an engine… “The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets… would call for prompt legislative action even if the military and economic implications were not so overwhelming… In addition, the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture…”

The above was reported in the US Congressional record in 1875. Luckily, no one took any notice and no harm was done.

But the coercive do-gooders are still with us. In 1979, Mr Einfield, the champion of consumer safety in NSW, threatened to legislate against self-service petrol stations because they were “too dangerous and too heavy to use, especially for women drivers”.

To some extent, Mr Einfield was cynically using the smokescreen of “safety” to featherbed his union mates. But he was also reflecting a modern mania for safety at all costs.

Examples abound.

A great debate now ranges about compulsory pool fences. There is undoubtedly a problem with toddlers drowning but this is caused by unsupervised children who can’t swim.

The proposed legislation will not help to solve either problem. In fact, it will aggravate them. Fences will give parents a false sense of security. With less supervision there will be more accidents of all kinds – not just drownings, but road accidents, getting kidnapped, getting lost etc. Secondly, fences will not teach kids to swim. Again the tendency will be to assure parents that early swimming lessons are unnecessary because all pools are fenced.

Safety, like environmentalism, has become a tool of the anti-capitalist crusade. As Paul Johnson said “Uniting as it does a wide range of health and consumer pressure groups, animated as it is by a quasi-mystical vision of total purity, safety provides as unrivalled emotional outlet for educated, middle-class opinion. It has become the leading, progressive good cause of our day, combining fear of technology, hatred of capitalism, the itch to interfere and the eternal nanny principle.”

The anti-growth, anti-multinational, pro-union, pro-bureaucracy theme of this group is quite distinctive, and reveals more concern for ideology than for safety.

The high priests of this new religion have brought us child proof lids (which fumble fingered parents can’t open), compulsory health and accident insurance, costly job licensing, harassment of alternative medicine, prescriptions for analgesics, censorship, gun controls, rigid and costly air traffic regulations, fluoride in our water and complex and compulsory product standard laws.

In Norway, the nutritional totalitarians have “an integrated policy on nutrition, food and agriculture” whose aim is to forcibly change the diet of the people in the hope of reducing coronary disease. In the USA, it is illegal to sell even a ladder or a sledge hammer unless it bears a label which warns of the danger of misuse. In Australia, politicians discuss whether prescriptions for vitamins, governors for motor cars and licences for baby sitters should be made compulsory. World wide, governments have decided to eliminate smokers at any cost.

Everyone is in favour of better health, safer work places and risk free drugs. But there is no free lunch. It is a dangerous delusion to believe that improvements in safety can be achieved at zero cost.

It is also a delusion to believe that a bungle of bureaucrats can discover the correct balance of safety and cost for every human activity. Safety is a relative thing which every individual may value differently. For example, to a refugee in the South China Sea, the absence of mandatory safety flares in his escape vessel is of zero consequence. He would trade all such luxuries for an extra can of drinking water or a pistol to protect his family from pirates. On the other hand, the millionaire yachtsman on Sydney Harbour will spare no expense to ensure his Sunday safety.

Similarly, the worker with six kids and no house is chiefly concerned to find any roof he can afford. He is not overly concerned whether or not his shack is built to conform with government building regulations. But the comfortable executive is happy to pay for secondary needs such as safety and aesthetics.

In both of these examples, enforcement of uniform standards of safety would deprive the poor man of something he values more than added safety and would not satisfy the rich man. Who then sets the standard and how is it set?

The morbid preoccupation of governments with safety at any cost has another perverse consequence. History shows that improvements in health and safety are closely correlated with economic progress. Prosperity, not legislation, produces safety.

The pioneering which precedes progress is always more dangerous than doing things in the old ways. Is pioneering to be outlawed because of its risk? Where would we be if the Seamen’s Union had prevented Captain Cook from leaving England without a decent map and accurate navigation equipment? Would Reg Ansett’s first plane have been cleared for takeoff by DCA? What if Leichhardt, Kennedy, Forrest and the squatters had sat in Botany Bay waiting for government surveyors and road builders? Will the pioneers of today be free to explore the mysteries of genetics? Where is our future if compulsory safety and regulated security smothers the urge to innovate and explore?

We are becoming a bunch of sissies. Maybe it is better for the future evolution of the race if persistent glue sniffers and metho drinkers are allowed to learn from experience. If we try to outlaw foolishness, we merely breed complacency, negligence, boredom and folly. All attempts to use legislation to solve non-criminal problems will achieve perverse results. (It is of course correct to ban the unauthorised supply of dangerous items to children or simpletons.)

All attempts at compulsory safety rest on the assumption that individuals are not competent to run their own lives and should not be allowed to choose risky options. To some government nannies, we are all government property. For example, in 1990, Paul Greene, a mechanical engineer, was prevented by the Victorian Marine Board from attempting to drive his amphibious Volkswagen across Bass Straight. (Foolish fellow thought it was his life and his car.)

Safety is an important consideration, but it is not the only consideration. And there is no single collective solution to the right amount of safety. Safety will be improved by organisations who value their brand names or their reputations as good suppliers or good employers. It will be published by voluntary co-operatives like the National Safety Council, The Master Builders Association, the insurance companies, the unions and the consumer and media watchdogs. Its value will be weighed and assessed every day by thousands of individuals with many desires and few resources. Government compulsion has no place in the area of safety except to combat contagious diseases, to ensure there is disclosure of abnormal risk, and to curb breach of contract, fraudulent claims or deceptive practices.

Life is an uncertain experience, but this is the essence of adventure and discovery. The only way to eliminate all risk, is to shoot yourself. Colin Fletcher in “The Complete Walker” puts it beautifully. He says –

… if you judge safety to be the paramount consideration in life you should never, under any circumstances, go on long hikes alone. Don’t take short hikes alone either – or, for that matter, don’t go anywhere alone. And avoid at all costs such foolhardy activities as driving, falling in love, or inhaling air that is almost certainly riddled with deadly germs. Wear wool next to the skin. Insure every good and chattel you possess against every conceivable contingency the future might bring, even if the premiums half cripple the present. Never cross an intersection against a red light, even when you can see that all the roads are clear for miles. And never, of course, explore the guts of an idea that seems as if it might threaten one of your more cherished beliefs. In your wisdom you will probably live to a ripe old age. But you may discover, just before you die, that you have been dead for a long, long time.

Posted in General | No Comments »

Atlas of Australia

September 24th, 2012 by Viv

From http://economics.org.au/2012/08/atlas-of-australia/

Viv Forbes, 23 August 2005

Viv and Judy Forbes breed cattle and sheep on a grazing property at Rosevale in SE Queensland. Viv recently formed “The Grassland Protection Group” to protect and promote Australia’s productive grasslands.

The Constant Battle for Land & Water
Australia has supported humans for thousands of years. Over the millennia, one feature has been constant — grazing animals have been the key to their survival. The grazier is the “Atlas of Australia”.

The essential assets for graziers are grasslands and water. Every previous generation has valued, maintained and conserved these, our most precious assets.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in General | No Comments »

Teach a Man to Fish

August 5th, 2012 by Viv

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.



Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to ‘Please Do Not Feed the Animals’.

Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on hand-outs and will not learn to take care of themselves.

Posted in General | No Comments »

Heroes of Freedom – Safe Worlds Television interviews Viv Forbes

June 3rd, 2012 by Viv

Safe Worlds Television, as part of a series entitled “Heroes of Freedom”, came to Sherana at Rosevale to talk to Viv & Judy Forbes:

www.safeworlds.tv/vivforbes/

Subjects covered:

  • The Early Years
  • Economics
  • Politics
  • Mining Days
  • The Environment
  • A Day on the Farm

Posted in General, Interviews | No Comments »

Viv Forbes in Sydney 2011: “Many Battles – Same War”

January 13th, 2012 by Viv

Posted in General | No Comments »

R.I.P Ron Kitching 1929-2011

March 8th, 2011 by Viv

Viv Forbes writes on the late Ron Kitching:

I first met Ron Kitching in 1966 – he took me to inspect a copper prospect called Mount Colin near Cloncurry. We struck a chord that day and since then our lives seem to have crossed many times over his long life. I never failed to learn something useful or interesting from him.

Ron was never luke warm – he was either engrossed and enthusiastic, or indifferent, or fiercely opposed.

He was engrossed and enthusiastic about exploration, drilling, soils, pastures, cattle, water, the principles of freedom, sound money, classical liberalism, the history of the universe and the battle for carbon sense.

More: http://think-right.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rip-ron-kitching.pdf [PDF, 336 KB]

Posted in General | No Comments »

Flood Risks

January 27th, 2011 by Viv

There is a growing chorus seeking to ban building on flood prone land.

Many settlements started near a permanent water supply on good alluvial soils, often at places where pioneer tracks crossed rivers or where pioneering ships berthed in river estuaries.

All such land is likely to be flood prone. It is not “certain” to flood in any particular year – it is “certain” to flood some time.

Similar water risks go far beyond flood plain inundation and include events such as flash flood, tsunami, tidal surge, dam failure, land slip, mud slide, wave erosion, storm damage, avalanches and advancing glaciers; even rising sea levels if you live as long as Methuselah. Will we also ban development on all of this land?

There is some risk associated with every block of land and the risk varies from place to place.

Some land brings higher risks from lack of water such as drought, bush fires and sand storms; or is located in unstable places where earth tantrums bring volcanic eruptions, earth-quakes, fault movements or subsidence.

Then there is property threatened by noxious neighbours such as wind towers, old mine workings or risky dam developments.

Someone could probably develop a “ban building” case for every bit of land on earth.

Whether he knows it or not, every land occupier assumes the various risks associated with that land. He should be free to do so. The price paid for the land generally reflects these risks and it is the responsibility of buyers and their advisers to enquire about flood and other risks.

But other people should not be forced to share that risk. Risk sharing should be a matter of free choice between every owner and his chosen insurer, even if that is “self insurance”. Insurance contracts should be clear and not deceptive and contracts should be enforced, but insurers and property owners should be free to decide all matters regarding insurance.

The worst risk to all landowners is government action. These include blanket bans involving Wild Rivers, Strategic Cropping land, parks, World Heritage, reservations, wildlife corridors, vegetation bans, green bans, resumptions, rezoning, interference and confiscations. These seizures are generally un-insurable, un-predictable, un-appealable and un-compensated.

What should governments do?

Governments should publish clear flood plans and make sure they are readily available.

Every landowner seeking building approvals must be advised clearly of the flood history of that land.

In national disasters the most useful things they can do is get roads, water, power and airfields working as soon as possible, and clean up all rubbish on streets. Use of defence forces and equipment is sensible – taxpayers are paying for them no matter what they do and much of disaster work gives them real experience at logistics and management in difficult situations.

But no bans.

If we had banned development on “flood prone” or “high risk” areas half of Australia would be given back to the bush.

Viv Forbes

Rosevale Queensland 4340 Australia

Viv Forbes is a geologist and farmer living on a farm in the rain-soaked Bremer River valley. He lived in Brisbane in 1974 and helped friends clean up in Graceville and, as a school boy, joined Warwick volunteers who helped to clean up flooded Inglewood in the 1950’s.

Posted in General | No Comments »

Universities

October 10th, 2010 by Viv

Conservative journalist Paul Johnson is right in observing:

“Universities are the most overrated institutions of our age. Of all the calamities that have befallen the 20th century, apart from the two World Wars, the expansion of higher education in the 1950’s and 1960’s was the most enduring. It is a myth that universities are nurseries of reason. They are hot houses for every kind of extremism, irrationality; intolerance and prejudice, where intellectual and social snobbery is almost deliberately installed and where dons attempt to pass on to their students their own sins of pride. The wonder is that so many people emerge from these dens still employable, although a significant minority – as we have learnt to our cost – goes forth well equipped for a lifetime of public mischief making!”

“Universities? We’d Be Better Off Without Them”, The Australian, September 18, 1991, p.21.

Posted in General | No Comments »

You Cannot Multiply Wealth by Dividing it

June 12th, 2010 by Viv

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because some body else is going to get what they worked for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any Nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Dr. Adrian Rogers,1931

Posted in General | No Comments »

Liberal or Conservative?

June 8th, 2010 by Viv

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course !!!!!!

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends !!!!!!
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Posted in General | No Comments »

« Previous Entries Next Entries »