If there’s any argument against legalization of drugs, pro wrestling is a microcosm of what can happen when behavior is completely unregulated.
I’m a free-market anti-union guy just like everyone else on this forum, but see that there must be some form of regulation in certain areas in life and business.
Compare wrestling with the NFL, where you have a similar amount of violence and a virtual monopoly, just like the WWE has with wrestlers.
In both markets, there’s a demand to be bigger, stronger, faster, either to break record books or to get that look that will get you that all-important “push” in the storylines. Athletes in both markets often live a rock-star life burning candles at both ends.
The difference is that there are strict regulations in the NFL, and there are virtually none in the pro-wrestling. There’s also a player’s union in the NFL, whereas there in none in wrestling. There is also a different culture where NFL players are often penalized and fined for outrageous behavior that’s encourged in wrestling. The result is that there are far fewer deaths of athletes in football whereas there are many in pro wrestling.
Exploitation is a common cry from the left when arguing against free-market principles, and for the most part their criticisms are overblown. However, in wrestling, I think they have a valid point.
If the NFL were to be as unregulated as wrestling, we would see 40 week seasons, hundreds of debilitating injuries and deaths, and far less of an emphasis on protection and safety.
I applaud how the NFL is finally taking concussions seriously, and I doubt if pro wrestling can be trusted to regulate itself, WWE’s recent attempts at self-regulation notwithstanding.
I’m not sure what it will take.
“If there’s any argument against legalization of drugs, pro wrestling is a microcosm of what can happen when behavior is completely unregulated.”
You (and me) choose not to take such substances, but if a grown man wants to ingest them in his quest to get bigger muscles, what business is it of yours? Sure, it’s dangerous, and he no doubt knew that, along with his family members and associates but he made the choice on his own. We must offer them counsel and encourage them not to make these type decisions but restricting their freedom goes too far.
Freedom means allowing others to make their own decisions and, possibly, fail. As long as they are only hurting themselves then it’s not up to anyone else. That’s the hard part about freedom that our society can’t accept. The Founding Fathers knew it and accepted it but our modern socialistic society can’t handle it. The idea that no one should be allowed to fail is what brought about the welfare state, the Goldman Sachs bailout, the gov’t healthcare debacle, and many, many other negative things in our society.
Freedom is a messy and difficult concept. Most people can’t handle it, because they feel that they must be compassionate, even to the point of controlling others. I’ve had family members with addiction problems and it is heart-wrenching to see them go through terrible things, but they have to be involved in saving themselves from themselves; we can’t do it for them. When they are finally ready for help then we can be there for them.
In my opinion, an individual’s freedom is a higher moral value than your and my compassion for them . Apparently you disagree with that. In the future we will decide anew how ‘compassionate’ our society will choose to be, as we experience a serious economic decline brought on by two generations of liberals trying to make sure no one is allowed to fail.