While I agree that passivity is a bad thing and requiring climbers to carry a PLB might lead to it somewhat, I don't see this as any more a "nanny" issue than having SAR crews or sending National Guard resources for a rescue in the first place; meaning I don't see it as an issue in that respect at all. If it could possibly save resources, time and money for rescue operations for climbers to carry PLBs, then it seems to me that is a good thing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see it only as the state regulating how people should act for their own safety, but also for the safety and expense of the crews who are going to have to go up the mountain after those in need of rescue.

I tend to lean toward libertarianism in a lot of respects, at least up to a point where personal freedoms start to affect others.

How about a big sign at the base of the mountain that says, "Take a PLB with you, or get yourself off the mountain in the case of an emergency!"

I do understand your point about a climber's experience, norad. However, experience, while improving one's odds, is no assurance that nothing bad will happen to the experienced climber. Experienced or not, anyone that gets into trouble on the mountain is going to waste resources.

That's just my take on it. As always, I could be wrong.