That's fine Christopher, it explains your dislike well, though I had and continue to have different reactions to both the said episode and the issue depicted. I guess I do not believe the state should prevent an event in which all parties have agreed to take part freely, as such a situation would impinge upon free will and also the treacherous concept of human rights. My wife has similar views on violence in general, though she liked that episode whilst tolerating the sport itself.
Would that extend to allowing, say, Russian roulette or pistol duelling as a spectator sport? The state has an obligation to protect its citizens' lives and safety; if nothing else, allowing irresponsibly and unnecessarily dangerous practices results in serious injuries that impair people's ability to contribute to the economy and put a serious drain on the health care system, so it's in all of society's best interests if basic health and safety practices are observed, which is why cars have seatbelts, football players wear helmets and pads, baseball players wear batting helmets, etc. It's also just a matter of compassion to try to discourage people from crippling or killing each other. There are plenty of sports out there that employ reasonable precautions to prevent serious or fatal injury, as a
protection of human rights as well as just plain common sense. Like I said, why can't boxers just employ a reasonable level of head protection like other athletes do?
Not being a boxer, nor a commentator, nor indeed a viewer of the sport, I do not know why. Of course there will be reasons, for and against, but it is not my place to say because I do not know. But sports are not controlled by the state, they are measured by associations who define the level of protection players must wear. In the relatively violetn sport of Rugby players do not wear much padding - I think only a gum-guard is required? Fellow Europeans/Australians/South Africans, any help here? But in any case, the players choose this and abide by these rules as part of an agreement to play the game competitively.
You know when writing the above section, I really did think of dueling. I wasn't sure what I thought on it, except that it had some sense of nobility that served to ensure that social conventions and expectations were met and preserved. My caveat was my semi-libertarian statement was that as long as both parties made it known their actions were by their own free choice.
In any case, I do not think that boxing puts a serious drain on the healthcare system, since there are so few boxers and the majority of the sport is generally maintained by associations.
Wider social issues where the state should maybe intervene include massed alcohol abuse, driving without seatbelts and the like because (i) they affect the majority of the population; (ii) if they were not enforced the common occurance of these issues would cause major healthcare impacts (a current debate in the UK over alcohol abuse fcouses on the cost to the state healthcare system) and (iii) finally also endanger others, who would not choose to be involved in such an event (including the children within a car, or pedestrians or other road users who may be hit by an ejecting body; or alternatively the people who breathe in carcinogenic fumes simply by entering a public service institution in which smoking is allowed).
This is a sliding scale, but rampant statism is a real threat to 'human rights', because it limits the individual event or person too much in an effort to save the collective. Consider the recently announed
Scottish Public ENtertainment Licence Fee, which demands that free art events in Scotland will have to announce themselves 3 months in advance, and require consultation and a health-and-safety inspection. This means no longer improptu free art events, including a band playing at a house party, or a free exhibition of an artist's art, or a literary reading event, or indeed events like casual boxing or other spectator events that fit into the arts - without the inspection of a government figure.
Yet the bill totally makes sense, from a health and safety point of view, ensuring people don't injure themselves, precautions are taken, and so on. Yet the result of the bill might be state limitation of events that are important, and the complete abandonment due to costs such events.
[sorry this is a less ontopic post, I have to get going
]
