Libertarian Solution to Hockey Violence
Posted by
Kevin
There has been much discussion recently, both here and elsewhere, concerning the escalating violence in the NHL, and about whether and what the NHL should do about it. Some have suggested automatic suspensions for fighting (similar to what baseball has done). Others have suggested stiffer fines and penalties, but not necessarily suspensions. Still others have suggested that fighting is part of the game, and that the NHL should let it go.
But nobody has asked the Libertarians for their solution to the problem, and I’m pretty sure I know what it would be:
Arm the players.
Think about it: Bertuzzi would think twice about sucker-punching Steve Moore if he knew that Moore and all of his Avalanche teammates were packing Ruger 10/22’s, wouldn’t he? And I bet Wade Belak would have done a better job controlling his stick if he knew Ossi Vaananen and his mates were carrying Glocks.
In addition to cutting down on the on-ice punching and-slashing, we’d get some exciting new penalties (”#9 Dallas, two minutes for brandishing.”), and the terms “penalty killing unit” and “shot stopped by Thibault” would gain new meaning.
It’s not a perfect idea, however. This being a Canadian league, something would have to be done about Canada’s oppressive anti-gun legislation. Since handguns would be out, the players would have to carry hunting rifles, and that would get cumbersome while also carrying a hockey stick. And I imagine any gun would be difficult to fire with those big gloves they wear.
Still, it’s worth exploring…
I am sure the market could come up with solutions for the stick/rifle problem. A rifle that doubles as a hockey stick, for example.
Comment 3/29/2004
Actually, the solution would have (and still is) to arrest the guy who broke the other guy’s neck.
Comment 3/29/2004
What, are you advocating some sort of oppressive police state? If the attacked player doesn’t press charges, why is it any of the State’s business?
(Yes, I’m being sarcastic…)
Comment 3/29/2004
I realize that you are kidding, but largely the solution is largely libertarian. Fighting and the fear of a fight stops a lot worse things from happening like stick infractions, kicking, etc. A lot of people argued that the instigator rule was a culprit as well, since nobody on the Canucks could pick a fight with the guy without being handed an extra penalty.
Comment 3/29/2004
One candidate for the 1980 Libertarian Presidential nomination came out for “handguns for fetuses” as the way to deal with abortion, so your idea may not be too far fetched. This could make hockey a greater spectacle than “Rollerball”, but it is headed in the wrong direction. Lefty columnist Molly Ivins wrote she favored gun controls not because she was against guns, but because she liked to watch knife fights. For more blood on the ice, we should instead let hockey players add ax blades and sword points to their sticks. Shooting is over too quickly, and might kill innocent fans who aren’t tax collectors.
Comment 3/30/2004
Mannish
I hear that said a lot, but I haven’t noticed it in practice. There are plenty of fight sin Hickey and plenty of nasty stick work. I haven’t noticed that teams with enforcers who are willing to eat the penalty have less stickwork agaisnt them than teams who do.
It would be interesting, though, to see the number of high stick incidents before and after the instigator penalty.
Comment 3/30/2004
Todd Bertuzzi Done a bad thing. I am a fan of his and his team but he shouldn’t of made that hit. Not only he hurt Steve Moore, he hurt his team too from not being there for them in the playoffs.
Comment 4/24/2004