Re 'One man's wilderness'.
Sorry, but reading this piece really rattled my cage! I repeatedly found myself taking issue with what the writer appeared to be trying to say and couldn't help but question the story's politics. I couldn't even figure out what the writer is trying to say exactly. Is the piece a discussion of the profound nature of a genuine 'wilderness' experience or is it an attack on 'social' regulation or perhaps even an attempt to promote a 'libertarian' politic?
Much of my 'confusion' arises from the references made to 'the nanny state', 'the blame culture' and the use of speed cameras which make the piece sound a bit too much like a 'Daily Mail' editorial! That said the article does make some interesting points. For example, I particularly liked the bit which says:
'He looked around, 9.30am and only a few climbers on the crags. He made the comment to Aden. "That’ll be the restrictions on climber numbers," Aden replied. "All the agencies, apart from the BMC, voted that one in. Said there was too much damage to the fragile environment, too many wild birds being disturbed. Even the ramblers voted for it just so they could get a concession for their own issues.
Ironically, it seems that in the real world many climbers, having gained statutory rights of access via the CroW legislation, are not adverse to doing something similar!
Peak District Area Committee Meeting
Minutes of the Peak Area Climbers Meting,
Held on Thursday 30th Sept., 2004,
At The Grouse, Froggat.
Bunny McCullough: All appears to be quiet at present but please keep an eye out for any of the following; Groups of Geologists and students chipping in the Burbage valley; Trail Bikes, Mountain Bikes, and 4x4s in any inappropriate locations. These may be strictly legal, but disturbing at the time. If you see any of these miscreants please let Bunny (best) or any one of the committee know.
If Britain is heading towards greater restrictions on public access and the greater regulation of outdoor recreation we all need to be aware of how our own actions can contribute to this, including climbers who berate others for not wearing a helmet or who might be tempted to report 'miscreant' mountain bikers to the BMC!
One of my main issues with the story is that the writer comes across as being very critical of almost any attempt by 'the state' to regulate peoples behaviour and in so doing falls headlong into most of the traps those arguing for 'libertarianism' fall foul of.
Firstly, the piece conflates some very different interpretations of what is meant by 'freedom' in an attempt to make its point, a technique which often amounts to a journalistic sleight of hand. The sense of personal freedom which comes from climbing is a very different type of freedom from political freedom, although the two may be linked. Unfortunately, it is a common tactic of those who desire a very specific 'freedom' (say the 'freedom' to drive at speeds which are currently illegal) to make appeals to other, often more fundamental, forms of 'freedom', implying that anyone who is opposed to, say, allowing motorists to drive at any speed they think fit, is by definition hostile to 'freedom' in the most general sense. Similarly, it might be argued that denying them the 'freedom' to speed would be comparable with denying someone some other freedom they hold dear, (for example, being allowed to take risks when climbing) even though the two conceptions of 'freedom' are not at all comparable. The author does something very similar when he implies that there is some common link between 'the nanny state', the use of speed cameras and so on and the possibility of greater regulation being placed on public access to climbing.
Sometimes 'nanny' really does know best and is only trying to protect her charges their own stupidity or (MUCH more importantly) from causing harm to others. For example, I don't think that measures to reduce the number of road killings (not to mention the intimidation and fear speeding causes) can be upheld as examples of 'Big Government unjustifiably meddling in peoples lives', as Michael Howard once claimed. If the token attempts made to enforce the speed limit are really so intrusive why not get rid of 'Big Brother' restrictions on drink driving and all other laws relating to driving as well? Perhaps because ultimately we all want the benefit from the protection of the law even though we might resent having to abide by the law ourselves?
Similarly, those who call for greater 'freedom' for themselves must recognise that increasing their freedom may well lead to a reduction in the freedom of others. For example, the freedom of motorists to drive where any pretty much how they please has taken away the freedom of many other to walk or cycle or to allow their children to do so because they live in fear of 'the traffic'.
When trying to draw the line between justifiable laws and unjustifiable 'authoritarianism' I feel we should apply a basic rule which states that, whilst everyone should have the right to place their own safety at risk if they so choose, no one has the right to act in a way which puts the safety of others at significant risk. Consequently, no valid parallels can be drawn between being required to pass a driving test and to not exceed the legal speed limit when driving and (hypothetically) being required to pass a test before being allowed to climb, or being banned from solo climbing. In the case of regulating the use of potentially lethal pieces of high-speed machinery in public areas high levels of control are entirely justified in order to protect both the lives of innocent third parties, as well as their right to use the roads free of fear. In the case of climbing the 'case' for greater regulation is almost non-existent by comparison as the climber creates no significant risk for anyone but themselves.
This is not the place to write a detailed critique of 'libertarianism' but no one should forget that a primary function of the law is to protect the powerless from the powerful. Consequently, a move towards 'minimal Government' may easily lead to a 'tyranny of the majority' or the most powerful. In addition there can be no such thing as unfettered freedom when every additional freedom one is given may well result in the reduction in the freedom of someone else.
Cont...