In many political debates I’ve witnessed this often seems to be the ultimate trump card.
But I don’t really see a whole lot of downsides to living in a nanny state. I don’t like having to worry about there being guns on the street, or health care, or starving because I lose my job.
So what’s your problem with a nanny state? Worried about it being unsustainable economically? Slipping into totalitarianism? Or feel somehow that it limits your freedom to a significant degree? Others?
It wouldn’t have to slip into totalitarianism – by definition, a state that could prevent all injuries (including self-inflicted ones) would already be totalitarian, since it would need to regulate all aspects of life that could result in injury.
I think you’ll probably need to define “nanny state” a little more definitively, but my take is that it relies purely on opinion rather than the constitution (though I will concede that the constitution relies on opinion as well…but there’s a process for that opinion…it’s not quite the same thing). I would hate to think that a single random person’s opinion could control any more of my life than it already is.
I’ve been to some pretty bad neighbourhoods in L.A., and I’ve never worried about guns on the street. The vast majority of firearms in this country are not used illegally; so laws against them only injure the majority of gun owners. But I don’t want to turn this into another gun control debate. Just taking your specific example.
What about other things? I never wore a helmet when I was riding bicycles as a child. Nobody did. In California, children must wear them now. I was surprised when I was bicyling in Vancouver, B.C. that adults had to wear them as well. Certainly helmets prevent injuries. Certainly children (and some adults) have been saved by them. How could anyone be against such a law? Well, when I was growing up in San Diego I didn’t see a need for them. I would have been better served to have worn a cup. So I don’t think a law is necessary. But ‘If it saves a single child…’
There are other issues that should be addressed. Smoking, for example. Smoking is bad, but many of us do it anyway. Would I make it illegal to smoke? No. But I think that a ‘nanny state’ law that makes it easier for people to seek treatment to stop smoking would be a good thing. You all know that I am in favour of Universal Health Care. It could be covered by that. And it could be partially funded by tobacco companies.
Obesity is also bad. Again, we can’t make overeating and not exercising illegal. I don’t think obesity is a disease, but it’s certainly a health issue. With UHC I think there could be a way to help people lose weight. A ‘nanny state’ law might require insurance companies to treat obesity as a disease so that people can get help. I was recently reading a brochure about health plans. If you take part in their ‘healthy lifestyles’ thing – take a survey, find out what needs to be improved, and take steps to remedy the problem; for example wuitting smoking, joining a helth club, etc. – you save 25% on your insurance premium. AFAIK the companies aren’t required to offer this. So is a ‘nanny law’ necessary? Maybe, until all insurers offer health incentives.
People do a lot of things that may cause injury. Most shooters are responsible and do not break existing laws. Most motorcyclists I’ve seen (and I have six-figure mileage on motorcycles) ride safely. Most SCUBA divers don’t drown. Most people who do most things do them safely. So ‘nanny laws’ that affect individuals are, IMO, not needed.
But, again IMO, corporations need some help. Laws that enhance health care, require better fuel efficiency in vehicles, reduce effluents from factories, make workplaces safer, protect people’s investments, etc. would be painful for businesses. But businesses have large impacts on people and the environment, so I think they should bear more of a burden. Don’t outlaw smoking; make the company help people quit. Don’t ban SUVs (believe it or not, there are people who really do need them); make automakers improve their efficiency.
Nanny laws can do a lot of good. They can also limit people’s choices. We should be very judicious about making these laws. We shouldn’t pass them as knee-jerk reactions, but only after carefully weighing the pros and cons.
It depends – is the nanny hot? Maybe one with that repressed-British-sexuality-simmering-beneath-too-tight-tweed wouldn’t be so bad. I could picture myself surrendering a few freedoms.
Sailboat
Too often people forget that the law is always backed up by violence. If you don’t obey the speed limit you get a ticket, if you don’t pay your ticket you get called to court, if you don’t go to court you get arrested, charged with contempt, and sent to jail; if you try to leave jail men with guns stop you, if you fight the men with guns you get shot. I don’t mind using violence to make sure people pay for their fair share of government services and don’t steal from or kill each other. I do have a problem with using violence to make sure I don’t eat too much. I don’t want to have to pay a seventy-five dollar fine if I forget to put on my bike helmet before riding a mile to the convenience store and back.
The answer is simple: the loss of freedom, the loss of personal responsibility.
Yah, I’ll take 2 of what he’s having, & make sure they’re fresh.
Some nanny-state laws are intended to make access to a particular ‘vice’ difficult. Examples would be laws restricting when and where things like alcohol, tobacco, junk food, or pornography can be sold or used. That’s an inconvenience to those of us who want those things, even though they might be bad for us.
Some of the people who smoke might argue “Why should I pay more for cigarettes to fund someone who wants to quit smoking? I don’t want to quit, and I don’t care if they do.” I actually think that’s quite a reasonable point.
Bicycle helmet laws make it more difficult and expensive for a kid to ride a bicycle, and that might result in fewer kids riding bikes. That could result in more childhood obesity, and the health problems arising from it- paradoxically, a law intended to protect childrens’ health might end up making more kids less healthy.
why are the google ads all for Trump stuff and real estate?
Hey, I’d be happy to live in a nanny state – otherwise known as European-style social democracy. Are there sacrifices involved? Sure, and I’m mostly fine with them. There are sacrifices involved in living in a non-nanny state as well, let us remember.
I imagine that this kind of state is always economically sustainable - just pile on the vice taxes. Of course, it can be economically sustainable and still be a waste of resources.
My concern is more about personal freedoms. I think the government should make as few moral judgments as possible. I also think that arguments like “overeating isn’t a personal choice; it’s everybody’s business because the public pays for fat people’s hospital bills” are bullshit.
The nanny state is fundamentally flawed in its philosophical outlook. Its goal is to keep people safe from things that they might choose to do with the implication that people are best served by being as safe as possible and living as long as possible. Why is that a unifying goal? Everyone and I mean everyone of these people you try to protect is going to die anyway. The real goal should be quality of life and that is a balancing act rather than just restricting freedom every time a problem or perceived problem turns up. That is the fallacy of the “if it just saves one life” movement that slowly chips away at the quality of life for everyone.
I don’t want someone else deciding what is good for me. I am quite capable of doing that all by myself. And if I decide to drive somewhere without a seatbelt and I get into an accident, well, then, it sucks to be me.
BTW, I always wear my seatbelt. Well, maybe not from the post office to my house, which is within walking distance. But every other time, yes.
The main problem with the Nanny State is the salami principle, also known as the boiled frog principle - your freedoms get eroded one slice at a time, the temperature raised slowly enough that you don’t notice it. I agree that wearing a helmet is pretty sensible when you’re riding a motorcycle, but the are a lot of people out there who would like to see motorcycles banned altogether. For your own good, see? Because you can’t make up your mind yourself, nor can you be trusted to act responsibly, but don’t worry, we solve that problem by taking away your choice entirely.
Just out of curiousity, how’s this different from what us 'mericans are experiencing now?
“Yeah, don’t mind the warrantless wiretapping, we’re just here to protect you from those nasty terrorists… and here’s a national identity card to weed out illegal immigrants… Hey, we need the power to see your Amazon.com purchases, make sure you’re not buying any copies of the Koran…”
Don’t try to hijack this thread. We’re not talking about Bush.
Thanks for the replys all.
Yes, I guess it would depend the idealogy of who you talk to. The more conservative the person, the less it would take for them to define it a nanny state. I have heard people using the phrase when simply discussing universal health care and welfare.
I suppose I would have to draw the line at some level of micromanagement. I’m happy to have welfare, universal health care and other big stuff like that. Things like seat-belt, bike helmet, and anti-smoking laws don’t bother me so much because I would follow those rules regardless of them being mandated. But I agree with cabdude there could come a point in the future where there are laws mandating lifestyle choices I don’t agree with. There would have to be some limits on how far a government could go.
Yeah, that is the level I would be happy with too. To me, there are many kinds of freedoms out there. For instance, I prefer the freedom from worrying about winding up on the street to the freedom to make absolutely as much money as possible.
That’s the rub. Nanny states are fine, until they mandate a lifestyle choice that you don’t like.
I’m sorry if I was a little snippy to rjung, but talk about wiretapping is almost certain to derail this thread. And in any event, nanny states are all about protecting people from themselves. It’s like having a fussy, overprotective mother who still treats you like a child.
But in many ways we already do. If I smoke marijuana and a cop catches me, I get “grounded” (jail or prison). Same if I decide to use the services of a prostitute. We already have a nanny state, except this nanny is more concerned with discipline than with nurturing. :dubious: