What's so bad about living in a "Nanny State"?

Great Debates
21

And how is that different than being economically coerced into taking a job you don’t want, for example ? How about dying because you can’t get the medical care you need, or shelter, food and water ? Not having a nanny state is just as oppressive, or worse. That’s why a balance is best.

IMHO “Personal responsibility” is code for “be a victim”. It just means that when the big boys decide to screw you over, you’ll be alone and helpless and unwilling to ask for help; an easy victim.

In my opinion, most complaints about “nanny states” boil down to a near sociopathy; “I’ve got mine, and the rest of humanity can starve !”

22

Exactly. I get rather peeved when some folks use “nanny state” derisively against social programs or positions they don’t like, while ignoring the fact that the exact same term describes the views they support.

23

Because a person has to be responsible for themselves and their actions. I’m not saying their isn’t a need for some safety-net programs to help people. particularly those who can’t help themselves. But why should an able-bodied person of at least average intelligence be allowed to suck off the government teat because they’re unwilling to do for themselves? And why, as a taxpayer, should I have to support that person?

There are laws out there that people may not like (such as helmet laws) that not only protect them, but protect society as a whole. Because the people whose brains are scrambled because of a head injury end up costing all of us in medical bills that are often picked up by the state.

Health care reform shouldn’t have to be a government-sponsered insurance program. It’s more important to get health care back to a point where it’s affordable. I’ve never understood why a dog and a person can have the same tests, procedures and treatments by doctors who have gone through the same amount of schooling, and yet the bill for the animal is thousands less than the human. In part it’s because of insanely large settlements for malpractice. It’s because the drug companies have to minimally modify a drug’s formula every few years to bring out a bigger, better, and more expensive drug, which basically does the same as the last drug.

There are no easy answers. It’s a fine balance between callous disregard for your fellow man, and expecting your fellow citizens to be as responsible as you are yourself.

StG

24

Not to suggest that you’re using a broad brush there, Der Trihs, but could you give some examples? I consider myself opposed to the ‘nanny state’ idea and it never occurred to me that my reasons were borderline sociopathic.

25

Having lived for 30-some years in Denmark, I’m sure that some will claim I’ve been nanny-stated to death, yet I don’t feel that much of a difference to the last 5 years that I’ve been living in the US - and, with all due respect to the country that has opened its doors for me,I’m not sure the comparison as regards freedom is entirely in favour of the US.

There’s the entire gun thing, of course. Not that I didn’t shoot an interesting variety of weapons in Denmark - I did - but I would have had a hard time if I wanted to carry a firearm beyond going to the range and back. Getting a permit for sport or hunting isn’t that hard (although certainly much harder than in the US) - getting a permit to carry a weapon for the stated purpose of self-protection would have been close to impossible. (The country is relatively peaceful, so people who state that they feel the need for firearms are considered slightly off their rocker and probably not good candidates for special permits…) No doubt, the US wins there as regards freedom. I’m not sure it’s better as regards happiness or safety, but it is free.

On the other hand, the freedom to leave a job you hate and still have full access to health services - that one seems rather lacking in the US. (As luck would have it, I don’t hate my job.) And I was pretty impressed with the health services provided for those of my Danish relatives who have been unlucky enough to need them. Does that mean that I paid for a few freeloaders, too ? Probably. I’m fine with that. Even a lazy jerk does not deserve to die prematurely due to something he could be cured for.

Of course, for most people, the important freedoms are those you’re used to - it’s a cultural thing. A clever guy once said that “your culture is the sum of your habits”, and being stopped from something we’re used to doing feels really constrictive.

A couple of dumb examples: You can’t own more than 5 vibrators in Alabama. It’s not a big issue for me personally, but WTF ? The State wants to safeguard my morals, now ?

And on the flip side of that coin, you can’t give your child a derogatory name in Denmark. I honestly don’t know whether that should be the state’s business, but I see a better rationale for that than for the vibrator law, truth be told.

Eh - I’m rambling. Turn this into an “Ask the Nanny State Victim”, if you wish…

26

Communicable diseases don’t check insurance information before infecting someone, and they don’t care if they infect lazy freeloaders or employed go-getters. I think that’s the best possible argument for universal health care.

27

Sometimes I like things that are bad for me; like drinking or smoking or gambling or smoking some doobie or picking up a prostitute or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Why can I not be allowed to decide to ignore what’s in my own best interests from time to time?

28

Now, now, Jim. You’ll only hurt yourself. Nanny knows best, dear.

29

There are numerous issues at play here.

First, we often treat ‘nanny state’ laws as rather black or white - of course smoking is bad for you. Of course overeating is bad for you. Of course it’s stupid to ride a bike without a helmet. If you take that attitude, then going the next step and saying that the government should protect you from such obvious bad choices is easy for some.

But in the real world, these decisions are not black and white. They are lifestyle choices. There is no absolute moral or ethical principle you can point to that says it’s better to live 80 years on a calorie restricted diet than to live 50 years while enjoying every fatty meal you want. Smoking may not be good for your health, but for many people it IS good for their peace of mind. They enjoy it. Until (and if) they get sick, it makes their lives happier. If you really, really value the sensation of the wind blowing through your hair while riding a motorcycle, then maybe driving without a helmet isn’t such a bad thing.

We trade off enjoyment for risk all the time. I SCUBA dive, fly airplanes, ski, and do other risky things. There’s no doubt that I have shortened my statistical lifespan by flying small airplanes, but it’s a choice I voluntarily made, because a riskier life doing things I love is much more valuable to me than a longer life devoid of risk and challenge.

And the thing is, once we move into the realm of personal values and risk/reward tradeoffs, the government is a terrible arbiter. No one but me knows how much I value skiing, or flying, or sitting on my ass typing on a computer instead of exercising. Therefore, a society-wide decision around any of these is bound to be a very poor tradeoff for many.

Then there is the argument for social vitality. I would argue that a society of vibrant, risk-taking people is healthier than one in which the government manages risk and coddles the people. I think we were a better culture when our frontiers were more dangerous, when our risk-takers took more risks, and yes, when more people died attempting great things. When I look at a country like France, where you are protected from losing your job, protected from poverty, where people demand ‘protection’ from the vicissitudes of life as their divine right, I see a culture in decay. Greatness comes from taking on great challenges and even great risk. Mediocrity in the name of safety is not a virtue.
Then there’s the philosophical argument, which I am most fond of. What is the nature of the social contract between me and my government? Am I born free, to walk through the world in a manner of my own choosing so long as I don’t hurt others? Or am I a lesser being, a cog in a machine to be pushed and prodded into behaviours I didn’t choose for myself?

I believe in the former. I believe that humans are born with inalienable rights. I believe that my social contract begins and ends with me pulling my own weight, earning my own living, forcing no one else to give to me what I didn’t earn (or forcing others to give to a third party), and being a good citizen by contributing my share to pay for those things which society must provide and which I am a beneficiary of. My concept of a good and just society is a collection of free people living in peace and being left alone to choose their own manner of living and dying. Free from birth to the grave.

I flatly deny the state the right to tell me what I must think, where I must live, what risks I may or may not take on for myself, and how I must spend my own time, energy, and money. For once you accept that the state has the right to do these things, you are nothing more than chattel - a resource to be plucked, a child to be coddled by those who know ‘better’ than you, a pawn to be manoevered for the ‘greater good’.

The mere thought is abhorrent.

30

A major criticism (I’m not talking about a social safety net or gov. programs to increase social mobility, just programs designed to enforce safe behavior) is that gov. selectively picks & chooses what behavior is healthy or not, and the motive for the decision may not be noble.

If obesity weren’t considered physically unattractive it all but certainly wouldn’t be considered a major medical issue. Things like flossing your teeth and eating peanuts are just as important to your risk of getting heart disease as being obese. so the gov. may prohibit obesity (which is considered physically unattractive) while not doing anything about people not eating peanuts (which doesn’t incite social revulsion). The author of freakonomics had an equation called outrage*risk=response. We respond heavily to things with a major outrage but little risk (kids being kidnapped by strangers) but ignore issues with a major risk but no outrage (people not eating peanuts or flossing their teeth, which helps cause heart disease) so laws would be based on stereotypes and social stigma rather than reason. Plus you’d have to worry about bicycle helmet manufacturers trying to enforce a law requiring everyone to wear a helmet.

Naturally there is alot of good to the nanny state. Worker safety laws, seat belts and air bags in cars, a clean environment mostly free of pollutants and toxins, etc are all due to the nanny state.

31

I’ve got a better example, Wesley. Speed limits. It’s no secret that many roads and freeways have speed limits that are unnecessarily low. What many people don’t realize, however, is that traffic tickets are a significant source of revenue for many municipalities. This is why the limits don’t get raised, even though almost everyone speeds on that freeway, and has for as long as you or anyone else can remember. It’s really more of a sin tax, or a kind of negative lottery. Speed limits do serve a useful and necessary purpose, but the way they are enforced is a good example of less-than-honorable motives.

Also, I’m surprised that many people here seem to think that nanny states are an all-or-nothing deal. The reality is that there a continuum between total liberty and total protection. Both extremes are horrible. Total freedom would be heartless and amoral; total protection would be oppressive, intrusive, and generally soul-crushing. The debate is about deciding where in the middle you want your society to fall. I tend to prefer thing pretty much as they are, myself, although I tend to lean toward the liberty side of things.

As for universal health care, I’m not opposed to it in principal, but I would like to point out that Western Europe pays some of the highest tax rates in the world. Social programs do need to be paid for, after all. Also, as a good conservative, I have a deep-seated distrust of the government’s ability to manage something without totally FUBARing it :wink:

32

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

33

Short Answer made up entirely of questions:

Do you still live with your parents? If so, is it only out of necessity (i.e., underage, completely broke, restraining order won’t allow you to move back into your apartment, etc.)? If not, why did you move out of the house?

If the gov’t decides what you do, what you put in your body, etc., what’s the point of being a grown-up? Getting to pay taxes?

34

The posters on this board remind me of the parable of the blind men who all felt a different part of an elephant and all had a different opinion about what elephants are like.

You obviously have different opinions of what is meant by “nanny state”.

For example, while I love the USA and have friends there, and like to vacation there, I would never want to live there. My Canadian “nanny state” – whatever the hell that means – makes me very happy, thanks.

Freedom? Well, there is freedom TO and freedom FROM. The cat lying on the bed next to me right now lives in a nanny state I have imposed on him. He has no freedom TO leave the house (cars, coyotes, dogs, fisher cats etc. out there – too dangerous). He is neutered (again no choice of his) so he is not free TO go out and mate. He is not free TO fight all night with other males for the right to mate, or to eat parasite-ridden mice that will harm his health. But he has freedom FROM fear, hunger, disease, violence, and being torn apart by a predator. My previous cat lived to be 20 which is like being 100 for humans, and never had a day of hunger or fear. He gets cuddled and petted and purrs. When the time comes, his death will be a strong tranquilizer and a painless heart-stopper administered by the vet while I hold him tell him I love him.

As I write this, the window is open and I hear ferral cats (aka alley cats) fighting outside. They are free TO fight and mate and hunt. And their average life-span is about two years. Basically 100% of them have fleas, parasites, etc. And when they die, it is usually painful and ugly. But they have every freedom TO.

To a large extent, this is a good analogy of the difference between the “minimal interference” state and the “nanny state”. Except that as long as your nanny state is a democracy, like Canada, you can control the amount of freedom you surrender in return for the pleasure, comfort and security of social benefits.

One last point. The biggest lie you will ever hear from the the Conservative Right in the US is one that is only implied. Namely, that loss of freedom resuls only from governmnent interference. Horseshit! Do you think that in an uncontrolled capitalist system the only factor that could infringe on your freedom would be government regulations? Do you think a worker in a state that had no labour laws, no occupational safety and health laws, no social programs, would live in glorious, primal freedom? Come on?

35

While this is a good sentiment and a preferred state of reality there is a pitfall to this scenario. Large government programs are easy to vote in but are darn near impossible to reverse. If your healthcare system drags your economy down then there’s a problem you can’t easily vote a solution for.

What is feared, in a political sense, is that first step. Is it the yellow brick road to Oz or is it a cliff? In the United States, we’ve had a sample of what nationalized health care can become. HMO’s (although a private institution) are a government construct that Congress created as a private version of nationalized health care. An experiment if you will. Just like wage and price controls. They looked good on paper but in the 25 years I’ve dealt with HMO’S their costs have risen exponentially. Something is wrong with the set-up.

While most people would be interested in some kind a national health care directive, it has to be right the first time. There is no turning back from what will become the worlds largest business. Massachusetts is currently instituting a state mandated insurance program. I plan on following this as it progresses to see what works and what doesn’t. If it looks viable in the long run then we will have a model to follow. If not, we can move on to something else. We’ve already had a national health care system for the poor (Medicaid) and one for retirees (Medicare). Replacing these with one large system should be done with great care to avoid Nanny-care free-fall.

36

I know the Chinese get upset when the US condemns their human rights record, so they retort with a human rights record of the US. However their list of human rights includes things like ‘safety from crime’ or ‘ability to find a job and not be unemployed’ and claims the US is doing poorly in these areas. I would agree as the US has one of the highest crime rates of any developed country, if not the highest.

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zfbps/t36544.htm

37

Well, as far as I can see as a Gay person, the US is DEFINITELY a nanny state… Gays and Lesbians are told that by the Government that they can’t get married, they aren’t allowed to bring partners into the country, they must pay into a system (Social Security) that will not pay out to their partners if they should die, and more… (those are just off the top of my head)

The Government has decided in its “wisdom” that it must “protect” the “family”… and is using its power to enforce what it thinks is acceptable behavior. The supposed Non-nanny States of American intrudes on Gay and Lesbian lives constantly.

38

Correction: As long as the nanny state is a democracy, my two asshole neighbors and I decide what freedom I surrender. Sometimes, it’s a little more than I would choose for myself.

As to your analogy, when I think the vet and my owner gets their balls clawed off before it happens to me.

39

Er, maybe an analogy that invites – nay, begs for – the comeback that “oh, so a ‘nanny state’ means treating people like the government’s pets” isn’t the best way to make your argument. :dubious: