Monday, February 12, 2007

Nanny State: Yes or No?

The San Bernadino Sun takes a look this morning at the Nanny State and those in Sacramento who support or oppose it.

I guess it's no surprise that there are many believers in the Nanny State. We've seen plenty of them here. Whether it's frightening or refreshing that supporters of the Nanny State are so open about their beliefs is the question.

50 Comments:

At 9:01 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Whether it's frightening or refreshing that supporters of the Nanny State are so open about their beliefs is the question.

There's got to be a better way of writing that, but I don't have time to hassle with it right now.

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

Makes you almost want to pack your bags and leave this state doesn't it?

 
At 9:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'm sure you're frightened. Of course you are about most things anyways.

 
At 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, and don't mandate seat belts in cars, either! We don't need you nannies!

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger Greg said...

Sure, until it's your teenager that gets mangled in an accident not wearing a seatbelt. Since society pays a price, too (medical costs, anyone), society has an interest in keeping your kid's seat belt firmly fastened.

The Nanny State idea is not new; it's the opposing extreme from the Authoritarian State currently promoted within the Republican Party and elsewhere.

If we are going to use parental role-models for our government, maybe we can include both, the "loving, nurturing, caring" qualities generally associated with liberal, tolerant Democrats plus the "authoritarian stern-father" model so adroitly adopted by the Republicans under Gingrich, et al.

Sometimes living with the R's and the D's is like living in a home where the parents yell and fight. A lot of the time we just want them to shut up and get on with making it all work.

 
At 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please move out of the state. If you don't like California, there are 49 others.

Meanwhile I love living in a state that is advancing goals such as road safety, recycling, renewable energy, and meeting the goals of Kyoto with or without the Federal government.

When you compare the 'more regulated' states to the 'less regulated' I think you will find the better communities right here in California. An example is Katrina. California's OES is prepared (And some might say anticipates) FEMA and any Federal response to disaster to be negligible. IF that disaster were to strike here, California is one hundred times more prepared to handle such a crisis.

As for Kyoto, if you still don't believe in Global Warming, you probably still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

 
At 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Act like a child and expect to be treated like one Fred.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought we lived in a ninny state?

 
At 11:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about the nanny seatbelt laws. I'm talking about the government regulating seatbelts into our cars in the first place. True libertarians despise this sort of government meddling in business and society. If society is going to move toward things like efficient indoor lighting, society has to make that choice, not government. The same goes for the civil right movement. If a business doesn't want to serve blacks, why should it be made to?

Don't you love libertarians? They pick and choose what sort of invasion of liberties are OK and often contradict themselves. They're really just democrats and republicans who are too snooty to admit it.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger Fred said...

11:45: I'm curious just what sorts of invasions of civil liberties you think I support?

Greg wrote, "Sure, until it's your teenager that gets mangled in an accident not wearing a seatbelt. Since society pays a price, too (medical costs, anyone), society has an interest in keeping your kid's seat belt firmly fastened.".

Problem with putting it that way, Greg, is that means just about anything we do should be regulated since just about anything we do affects someone else or uses resources. Which, of course, is just about where we are now, since nothing in our lives is beyond the perview(sic?) of government.

 
At 12:49 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

This is why the "progressives" are so keen to introduce socialized medicine. Once that is fully accomplished the state can control everything from regular tooth flossing to exercise and diet. Oops. Diet is already being regulated.

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leave it to our "Rovian" spin doctoring friend gregor to turn this into an evil republican bash session...lol.

 
At 12:56 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Trouble is, Greg, someday those kids you are strapping into seats, and telling what they can and can't eat for lunch - the kids whose freedoms and rights to choose you favor taking away in the name of safety - will someday be in charge of the old folks home they put you in.

Children learn what they live, Greg. And someday you may pay the price for that, what do you call it - the nurturant parent? The one who straps 'em in the seat, and doesn't allow them to move? That isn't my idea of nurturant, but hey, I guess that makes me a stern father.

I'm not much in favor of book burning, Greg, but Lakoff's book belongs in the fire. Good grief.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't figure out how to live on my own, please tell me how to live.

 
At 1:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't figure out how to live on my own, please tell me how to live.

 
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was trapped in a carseat as a child, now I am angry with old people!!!!! Grrrr!

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Oh, no. You are not ANGRY with old people. You just want to keep them safe. Don't want them to hurt themselves. Because you know better than they do what is good for them. It's not about being mad. It is about being LOVING, see?

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rose, I think you're reaching a little too far on this one. Thank goodness its the only area you do that with!! .....

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Yeah, I'm exaggerating. But my generation was the "you do your thing, I do my thing" and we've become so ridiculously overprotective and repressive. You'd think the opposite would be true. So, maybe the good side is this repressed generation we are raising will rebel and go back to a more free and tolerant society.

 
At 4:18 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Hey I know that if I get into an accident and am not wearing my seatbelt that I risk getiing f##$#@ up bad,and financially as well.So I take the resonsiblilty and wear it.I don't any government to force me to do so.
However,I do agree that drivers need to be insured.I'm not all against government taking actions on that.

 
At 4:19 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I don't want any government to force me to do so.

 
At 4:26 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Rose wrote, "But my generation was the "you do your thing, I do my thing" and we've become so ridiculously overprotective and repressive.".

Exactly. The same folks who used to believe in Live and Let Liveare the same ones pushing the omnipresent State now.

 
At 4:30 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Esquan writes, "I don't want any government to force me to do so.".

We might well see Mr Esquan joining the Libertarian Party soon. :-)

When you give the government the power to give you anything you want, you also give it the power to take it all away- Barry Goldwater

 
At 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, its pretty bad when the government wants you to fasten a safety belt, properly place a carseat, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, put an airbag in your car, make bicycle and motorcycle riders wear helmets, make sure contractors dont use asbestos.........

Guys, we don't live in some sort of dystopian future here... Face it, you like to complain, and government is easy to complain about. Get over it!

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The complainers are just lazy. Quit going to that tired old trough of 'we live in a fascist or communist society' bullshit.

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I'm not complaining really,it's not necessary to have government oversight in certain instances.Yes,government should ensure that companies are to follow set environmental standards.Problem is that execs from those companies are too often given governmental positions,which pretty much nullifies any environmental protection anyways.

 
At 4:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:44 what you're talking about is a separate issue then. the problem isn't government, but how U.S. government is run. If you talked about getting rid of the last vestiges of the Spoils system (Brown in FEMA), I'm right there with you. Until then, we have unqualified people who are loyal only to political parties running much of government. It is insane, and the U.S. is the only country that operates in this manner.

 
At 5:05 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Correct,4:53.Take a look at the No Child Left Behind Act as another example.What a waste.

 
At 5:52 PM, Blogger Greg said...

Mandatory seat belt use could only be controversial here at Fred's. On the issue of socialized medicine - we already have socialized medicine. The days of the medicine man are gone. The question is "who's gonna pay for it?" Why should we pay for damages to your teenager if you didn't make him or her buckle up?

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger Carol said...

This is a lively discussion! Even with the seatbelt law, I see parents holding their babies in their laps and kids dancing in the backseats without seatbelts. I think safety is important and I believe seatbelts save lives.

I think it is what you are accustomed too. My kids were raised in carseats and never question the value of seatbelts and are never bothered by seatbelts. A setbelt saved my college-age kid's life during a car accident last fall. My kids stare at me in disbelief when I tell them how when I was a kid people SMOKED cigarettes and cigars with their kids in the car and we never wore seatbelts and crawled all over the car.

 
At 6:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are all missing the point.....'cept Fred.

Aren't there real things for the legislature to be dealing with?

It's a question of whether or not we have elected these people to represent us or, do our thinking.

Time for a return to a part time legislature

 
At 6:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are eaxctly right Carol....just because there is a law doesn't mean that the risk gcoes away....look at what we all have to pay for uninsured motorists.

 
At 6:15 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Carol wrote, "My kids were raised in carseats and never question the value of seatbelts and are never bothered by seatbelts.".

For what it's worth, I've been a seat belt fanatic ever since they were dreamed up and made available- long before the "Buckle Up For Safety" signs came into being. I felt, not only safer, but more comfortable riding in a car wearing one.

I think people are stupid to ride in a car without seatbelts, just like I think it's stupid to ride a bike or motorcycle without a helmet.

That said, I'm opposed to mandatory seatbelt or helmet laws. If such things are a forced government edict, then there's no reason everything else shouldn't be.

I think many, if not most, of issues like this should be taken care of on the individual level.

 
At 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instant coffee,micro-wave dinners,10 sec sound bites. I want mine and I want it right now. Face lifts,tummy tucks,I'll stay young forever. How terribly inconvienant of you to age on me father. Away,away to some rest home for you. I have an important life to live. Hey! wait a minute,wait a minute! what's that your sticking in my arm? Please don't do that ,I'm only 89, has it really come that fast? I've changed my mind,I don't want instant death!

 
At 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW its pUrview

Just becase we have seatbelt laws (which you agree are proper)doesn't mean we HAVE to have laws regulating everything else. The "slippery slope" argument is bullshit. New regulation have to stand on their own and be justified at the time they're considered. Laws have to be only constitutional, not consistent.

If what you're really concerned about is changes in society's values and senses of propriety, you need to get out and convince other people that your ideas are better. But I've got news, most of the tax paying and striving populace believe that Government should adopt standards for safety that allow a maximum of people to live together in safety and harmony.

Those who isolate themselves in rural outposts like Humboldt haven't the slightest clue of the issues that providing for 300 Million souls creates in this nation.

So, live in your dying subculture, keep your heads in the clouds, remove yourselves from civilization and deny any links to public obligation. Keep telling yourself that whatever you do is on an "individual level" but when 300 Million others do the same and cause problems for you, its the Government's fault.

 
At 6:57 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Carol,if we weren't spending so much money and time on enforcing seat belt laws and such, we'd have much more money and time to deal with making sure drivers are ensured,and the problems arising from uninsured motorists who cause accidents,without encroaching on civil liberties.We all know that that accidents are deadly and costly,no matter what we're required to do by law.

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:47 is on to something.

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Carol said...

I see your points.

I'm not too happy about the government telling me what kind of light bulb to use, like Fred was blogging about last week.

If people would use just common sense, perhaps we wouldn't have to have all these excessive laws.

I know in Massachusetts the people said 'hell no' when a seatbelt law was being considered. Last time I was visiting my folks, there still was no law regarding seatbelts.

I agree with Fred regarding wearing helmets. But some biker may want to feel like Peter Fonda or Jack Nicholas in Easy Rider and let the breeze blow through his/her hair. My grandfather's twin brother didn't have a bike helmet when he fell of his bicycle and died. Of course, that was many years before Easy Rider.

Next January talking on cellphones and driving will be against the law.

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just unbelievale that these Nanny-staters want to keep people in lumbering SUVs, who have important phone calls from running us off the road!

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

Yes, SUV are pure evil, that's why both David Cobb and R. Trent Salzman own and drive them.

 
At 8:24 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

David Cobb owns an SUV? Wow,the definition of an SUV has certainly changed recently.

 
At 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've seen Cobb driving a SUV just last week. It's a pretty well known fact that he has a SUV.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Hmmm...I don't believe I've ever seen one parked in front of DU Headquarters, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.

I have heard that Tim Mckay owned one.

 
At 4:21 PM, Blogger Greg said...

I think Tim's was an old Nissan or Toyota. He wanted a hybrid.

 
At 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, you remind me of an old goat we had up on the ranch. See, this goat could suck it's own cock and walk backwards at the same time. You're similarly awkward and while you may be having a good time, none of the other goats seem to take after you.

 
At 5:54 PM, Blogger Fred said...

That's some hard hitting commentary, 4:33. That cut me to the quick.

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Anon.R.Mucous said...

Speaking of nannies. I want Rose to be my nanny. I need her to change my diapers because I can't change them myself. I should also get new carpet, because mine has take on the color of chocolate.

 
At 8:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim McKay drove a ratty old Ford Explorer. Paint peeling off, belching smoke, and the personalized license plate was
"ECOLOVE". Typical progressive hypocrisy.

 
At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim would be delighted to know that six months after his death the topic on the web is his car.

 
At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very rich person bought the Expolder for him. Prior to his death he got a new Prius.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home