Imprudent citizens should pay for their rescue missions

The Regional Parliament of the Basque region in Spain has passed a new Taxation Act which charges the cost of rescue missions on whomever takes part in sports in a imprudent fashion. The main Spanish political parties, PSOE and PP, voted in favour of this clause, already in place in Cantabria and Cataluña, as they indicate it will foster a "responsible citizen". The parties opposing this clause claim that the activities considered "extreme sports" were chosen arbitrarily and that the general taxation already fund these rescue missions.

I advocated this rule earlier this year when discussing the rescue missions of Spanish fishermen and mountaineers. At the time some people considered my idea outlandish, ruthless, and heartless. This is a typical response to lots of my libertarian ideas, even though some of them become mainstream later on and then none of those naysayers say anything about it.

Let's remember what I wrote back in April 18th, 2011:

Should there actually be one, the "contract of the taxpayer with the State" should not include a clause like the following one: "The State shall make every effort to save the life of those citizens who put themselves in danger for private interests."

Such contract should include the following [clause]: "Any citizens who put themselves in danger (eg., mountain climbing, working in Lybia) should cover the costs of their rescue if not on a mission ordered by the State".

This latter clause simply follows one of the basic rules that should govern human societies: "benefits and risks must be borne by the same person or entity". Otherwise we are socialising the risks (everyone pays for rescue missions of private adventures) whilst privatising the benefits (the adventurer doesn't share the profits with the taxpayers). This basic rule would induce everyone to perform a correct benefit/risk assessment and would prevent countless opportunities for injustice.

Love and Freedom.

En castellano:

En caso de que realmente sea necesario que exista, el "contrato del contribuyente con el Estado" no debería incluir una cláusula del tipo: "El Estado debe hacer todo lo posible para salvar la vida de los ciudadanos que se ponen en peligro por intereses privados"
Tal contrato deberá incluir lo siguiente: "Aquellos ciudadanos que se pongan en peligro [por ejemplo, montañismo, trabajando en Libia...] deberán cubrir los costos de su rescate si no era una misión ordenada por el Estado".

Esta última cláusula simplemente expone una de las reglas básicas que deben regir las sociedades humanas: "Los beneficios y los riesgos relacionados deben ser recibidos por la misma persona o entidad". De lo contrario estamos socializando los riesgos [todo el mundo paga las misiones de rescate de las aventuras privadas], mientras que privatizamos los beneficios [el aventurero no comparte los beneficios con los contribuyentes]. Esta norma básica induciría a todos a realizar una correcta evaluación de la relación beneficio/riesgo y evitaría un sinfín de oportunidades para la injusticia.

Amor y Libertad.