Vs. this guy's "water wheel" seems to fairly-mostly avoid those issues, if the CG could just say "YOYO" and forget about him.
This sounds like something adults should be allowed to opt out of. As long as the rest of us can be mature enough to not call for heads when some of them inevitably die, there shouldn’t be moral hazard. (Or maybe you’re rescued but you foot the entire bill.)
If a person were on top of a tall building wearing a bed sheet as a cape, letting them jump would be a similar moral issue in my eyes.
If this person was warned that he would not be rescued and the next day sent out a distress signal, do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help?
Arizona's stupid motorist law, which "states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue," is the model legislation here [1].
Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue.
> Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc.
I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
And there is constant advocacy for stronger restrictions/bans.
The point is, we do restrict people's actions on fireworks and guns in order to prevent larger costs. They are not a counter example for why the Coast Guard should have done nothing in this case.