I’m not convinced the girl should have been allowed by her parents to go, but the people going on about the cost do annoy me.
If your neighbour’s house is on fire, do you rent them your hose?
Australia rescues those in danger if we’re in a position to do it - and other countries do the same for us.
If the Sunderland family want to make some sort of donation after they make a lot of money selling their story, that’s fine with me - but you help where you can. That’s the way it works.
I think that the fundamental criticism is that "free" rescue missions should be reserved for emergencies for which the parties in distress bear no special blame and were not negligent (e.g., rescuing the crew of a commercial ship hit by a series of extremely unlikely and unfortunate circumstances for which they are not, themselves, culpable).
In contrast, missions to rescue adventurers and thrill-seekers (e.g., millionaires' 16-year-old daughters undertaking reckless stunts in order to garner prestige and fame) should be billed to the responsible parties.
I know that, in the case at hand, the Australian gov't, no doubt as a gesture of good will, has said that they won't expect compensation (though they have said that they would hope that the U.S. would reciprocate if the situation were reversed - i.e., if some bored Australian debutante intentionally puts herself in harm's way, etc. and needed rescuing), but there is still a violation of fundamental conservative principles, here.
Regards,
I’m not convinced the girl should have been allowed by her parents to go, but the people going on about the cost do annoy me.
*******************
And it is certainly a trend. If emergency services are going to be coin operated ‘user fees’, I want the bastards to stop collecting taxes.
Well of course I would, after all, the gasoline was free.......
Well, did your neighbors poor gasoline all over their house and then decide to light the barbacue that was right next to it, and then was astonished the house caught on fire?
I would still lend them my hose but I would explain to them that tempting fate can lead to disasterous outcomes.
Now next question: if your neighbors got the fire out then rebuilt the house and diod the dame thing again would you lend them the hose without talking about monetary compensation especially when your water bill had tripled the last time the neighbors tempted fate?
Abby is free to try as many times as she likes but as a conservative I think it is wrong that she place the responsibility on others to pull her fat out of the fire without offering up some compensation. Its not like she is out fishing to feed people or carrying cargo for purposes of trade. She is tempting fate in the roughest waters on the planet in a tiny boat to try and enter the record books. She doesn't have to be there to get a job done, she is there seeking the fame of being the youngest woman ever to circle the earth in a tiny boat.