It's a facile argument to state that "Our society continues to become ever more dependent on goobermint to save them..", as ground for rejecting safety advances in the form of reasoned regulation. Our society has a economic interest in quick rescue, minimizing injury say in auto crashes, even if the victim is not as smart or lucky as some others.
A sounder argument is that the radius within VHF range of a typical fixed installation makes the imposition of having a beacon unnecessary.
Wearing helmets on a motorcycle, having flares, all of these are acceptable responses to real risks with statistical empirical evidence of cost benefit to back them up. That's the role of government.
A point down below of requiring helmets in private homes with staircases is reducio absurdum that is taking a vaild point an streaching it to situations that are ridiculous on order to challenge an otherwise sound principle. Air bags fail--should we not mandate them?
As to fines for non compliance--thats a how regulations get enforced. And btw no one is even suggesting that non compliance is a criminal activity--although it probably would be on a commercial ship