Mission
What's New
About
Statutes
Contact
Opinions
Deaths
Press Release
Articles

 back

In a free society, the government has no business protecting people from themselves. The freedom to make what other people perceive to be bad choices is part of living in a free society.  Doesn’t state paternalism then discourage personal responsibility?  

 

The statement of a free society in this argument is very misleading and untrue.  Our society is not a totally free society, we live in a society that is governed by a republic or a representational form of government.  A “totally free society” is an Anarchist view of society.  To clarify, Anarchists are given to a principle or theory that our lives should be conducted under which is without government, laws or regulations and that our lives are not subject to submission to law or being obedient to authority but by free argument (http://a4a.mahost.org/piotr.html).

Here is a common misstatement: “I like to live in a free society.  A society where people have the right to do what they want as long as the majority feels ok with the activity. Therefore, I am against those that believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on someone without the support of the majority.”  

This is an Anarchist viewpoint of no government.  It is also a view of society is common, uniformed and not grounded in the reality of the kind of society we live in.  People who have this concept of our society also think the only job of the government is to protect the liberties of the people, and is the sole purpose of the Constitution to protect the rights of people from the government (http://www.randomfate.net/hanlon/archives/2003_10.html). 

Government does not tell you as a person how you are to live your life but it does regulate business and commerce.  After all our revolution occurred partially because, we were not represented in government over taxes.  The United States revolution was about having a voice or representation in government, how the minority voice was made illegal, how businesses are regulated and taxed, it is not just about personal freedom and responsibility.

In our form of government, it is undisputed an individual is free to make bad choices, and to be personally responsible for those choices under the confines of our laws and constitution.  We hold this moral value of personal responsibility to a high standard.  The values of personal responsibility does not stop at the individual but must be applied with the same conditions and conviction to any business, including Toughman, its owners and operators. 

Toughman has the responsibility to maintain to its best ability the safety of its participants and to ensure that the information about the risks to the participants are communicated and understood fully.  A business can make bad choices or even fail to meet its obligations just as an individual can.  When this occurs just as in the concept of personal responsibility, the business, its owners and promoters must be held responsible for its actions, choices, or when they knowingly dismiss safety precautions for profit at the expense of its participants.   

The Toughman Contest® is a product like any other product.  When a product is overtly dangerous our society responds with issuing a recall, ban them, or regulate them out of the market.  Those regulations are there to protect the individual from dangerous products.  If these regulations did not exist you would have toys that kill our children, and cars that explode in a crash.

Toughman is known to lie and misrepresent to its participants about doctors being present at all their contest (http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/OpinionToughman.asp).  They have allowed minimal safety conditions, have allowed highly trained experienced boxers into the ring, and have even participated in setting up extreme mismatches for the purpose entertaining the crowd with a knockout. 

In a 1996 deposition, Terry Vermaelen stated that he had competed in 56 amateur fights and had won three Louisiana Golden Gloves titles, and Toughman allowed him to compete (The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2003).

Several deaths in the Toughman competitions have lead to this need of regulation. Despite the deaths, Amateur Boxing as a sport should always legal, but Toughman, a business, needs to be held accountable and responsible for its outrageous behavior in our free society. 

The following information contained in the website is strictly opinion and should not be considered as fact.   Citations are given to you for you own purpose and ability to come to your own conclusion.  These references will assist you in answering the question for yourself.  Remember you should always question the perspective of what is being presented.

  Advertise With Us 
  
 
Click on Ad Position for details
     
     

 

(c) 2004 CombativeSports.Org