The Great Nanny State Debate

[Irvine511]

This 'nanny state' argument makes no sense to me. Which end of the political spectrum are you coming from? A nanny state where guns and exploitative capitalism are fine and don't warrant control, but abortion and equality opportunities do?

this gets to the heart of it.

 

[deep]

i guess it goes all ways.

on one hand, we have people who are sick of the government telling us that cigarette smoke causes cancer and that our SUVs pollute the planet.

and yet, others believe that their own views on marriage equality and a woman's uterus must be enforced by the government.

i tend to think that all this "get the government off our backs" stuff is really a way for people to say that you're not the boss of me.

it seems many of us state things in ways that support our beliefs

that may not necessarily reflect the others point of view

I don't recall anyone saying the Government should not require warning labels on tobacco, I don't know one smoker that is denying the correlation of tobacco to higher cancer risk

I never have really been a smoker, I have smoked a bit, but I never found it addictive with me. So I guess based on my own experience I can say tobacco is not addictive.

The nanny state we live in?
is one where people that do choose to smoke,
as of the signing of the new Child health bill,
are required to pay 61 cents more per pack of cigarettes? What is the logic in that?

I can't see anything but the tyranny of the majority on the minority.

 

[MooMoo!]

There's a fine line. I've no problem with nativity plays, so long as other religions (and non religious beliefs) are represented in schools too.

There is a fine line. But I dont see why the government are telling muslims, and other religions for that matter, what they should be offended by.

Are you one of these "that's political correctness GONE MAD!" type of people that use such arguments to excuse, say, using the N word?

I dont event know why you're asking me that. Or where you got that idea. Or how it even works. I wouldnt call a black person a ****** any more than Id call them any other rasist name, because its offensive.

This 'nanny state' argument makes no sense to me. Which end of the political spectrum are you coming from? A nanny state where guns and exploitative capitalism are fine and don't warrant control, but abortion and equality opportunities do?

Same as above, why are you asking this? I didnt reference guns, abortion or equal opportunities in anything I said.

 

[pgv]

There is a fine line. But I dont see why the government are telling muslims, and other religions for that matter, what they should be offended by.


I dont event know why you're asking me that. Or where you got that idea. Or how it even works. I wouldnt call a black person a ****** any more than Id call them any other rasist name, because its offensive.


Same as above, why are you asking this? I didnt reference guns, abortion or equal opportunities in anything I said.

Because I often hear this argument, you know "We're not allowed to do this or that" from the sort of people who would use it to excuse their xenophobia... hence why I asked, because I didn't want to agree with something that may have just been thinly veiled racism. It wasn't and I'm glad you're not one of those

In that second bit, I wasn't asking you but the poster.

 

[MooMoo!]

Fair enough.

Im not really highly politically opinionated, cos I dont know about politics. I just dont like the health and safety stuff thats come into force in recent years. Things that are being changed have been fine for decades, but people are being scared into changing them by the suing culture.

They wont even put plasters in my old school because of the whole latex allergy issue. I mean theres being careful and then theres being stupid. They wont go on school trips either.

I mean sure, some things about health and safety are positive, especially about the workplace. Though half the time they arnt enforced.

 

[Se7en]

?
is one where people that do choose to smoke,
as of the signing of the new Child health bill,
are required to pay 61 cents more per pack of cigarettes? What is the logic in that?

my guess is that the logic lies somewhere between generated tax revenue and price elasticity of demand in various demographics.

 

[melon]

*iron sliding a cold glass of raw whole milk and a pack of Twinkies to all board members

*hands out Fen-phen

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

It's awful sneaky to try to use pity for kids' insururance as an excuse to rob smokers, especially when we all know the money will never go where it's supposed to. They admit the price will discourage smoking, so they admit there will be less money? The only thing I know is when cig taxes go up people don't stop, they just either steal them or buy them instead of food.

What about laws forcing you to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet? Shouldn't those things be our personal decisions? I don't like nannies telling me what I should wear 'for my own good'. It's my body.

I hear now that the government is promising millions more dollars to states who pass the laws, so there you go, they don't give a damn about safety it's all about money. More funding from the government and more money from cops pulling more people over. What a scam.

 

[BVS]

It's awful sneaky to try to use pity for kids' insururance as an excuse to rob smokers, especially when we all know the money will never go where it's supposed to.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here...

What about laws forcing you to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet? Shouldn't those things be our personal decisions? I don't like nannies telling me what I should wear 'for my own good'. It's my body.

This is an interesting, highly debated issue(at least it use to be, especially with helmets) but what some folks don't seem to understand is that this isn't just an issue dealing with your body, this is an issue that goes further than that. To put it bluntly, car accidents, especially car accidents causing death cost the tax payers. Not only that, but it's not just your life you are endangering.

 

[maycocksean]

It's awful sneaky to try to use pity for kids' insururance as an excuse to rob smokers, especially when we all know the money will never go where it's supposed to. They admit the price will discourage smoking, so they admit there will be less money? The only thing I know is when cig taxes go up people don't stop, they just either steal them or buy them instead of food.

Isn't that a little over the top? I have a few friends who smoke and none of them--as far as I know--are stealing cigarettes or cutting back on food. Isn't more accurate (and more boring) to say they'll just find a way to pay the higher prices?

What about laws forcing you to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet? Shouldn't those things be our personal decisions? I don't like nannies telling me what I should wear 'for my own good'. It's my body.

Why is it that these kinds of complaints always sound immature to me. I mean it'd be one thing if seatbelts and saftey helmets didn't actually keep you safer. . .but it just seems so childish to say, "Nobody can make me wear a seatbelt." Not that the argument doesn't have merit. I don't know why the government would require us to follow laws that keep only ourselves safe? Doesn't the government have at least some room to pass laws for the safety of it's citizens and to keep them from harming themselves? I for one appreciate the laws because I tend to be lazy to wear my seatbelt and I'd probably neglect to do so even more if I knew that there'd be no other consequences besides a traffic accident if I didn't.

And while there might be some satisfaction in saying "Any fool who wants to go riding around feeling "cool" on their motorcylce with no helmet and then cracks their head open, gets what they deserve," I think there are a lot of motor cyclists who know they should wear their helmet and are less likely to neglect if they know there is a law against it.

 

[A stor]

There are all kinds of restrictions. He wasn't very specific, was he?

No he wasn't. I wish this thread was more specific.

Martha...what restrictions are in place for a women's right to her own health issues?

 

[martha]

This is an interesting, highly debated issue(at least it use to be, especially with helmets) but what some folks don't seem to understand is that this isn't just an issue dealing with your body, this is an issue that goes further than that.

Sounds like a pro-life argument to me.

 

[martha]

I think there are a lot of motor cyclists who know they should wear their helmet and are less likely to neglect if they know there is a law against it.

Then there is no choice, is there?

 

[martha]

Martha...what restrictions are in place for a women's right to her own health issues?

According to some here in FYM and in the US, I should have to get permission to terminate a pregnancy.

 

[A stor]

According to some here in FYM and in the US, I should have to get permission to terminate a pregnancy.

Permission from who? Only, those who are under eighteen would have to have a parent/legal guardian with them. To fill out insurance forms and other needed medical information.

 

[martha]

Permission from who? Only, those who are under eighteen would have to have a parent/legal guardian with them. To fill out insurance forms and other needed medical information.

Like I said, some people here in FYM think I should have to get permission.

 

[DrTeeth]

Italy government, president clash on right-to-die case | Science & Health | Reuters

It's repulsive intrusions like this that come to mind when I think of 'the nanny state', but for some reason in situations like this, the state seems surprisingly popular amongst self-professed libertarians.

 

[A stor]

I think. I am now finally understanding the term "Nanny State." Sorry, for my earlier confusion. A senior moment. At fifty two years old, I'm allowed.....

Anyway, I don't believe that government should have too much control. Especially, in our private lives.

 

[A stor]

Like I said, some people here in FYM think I should have to get permission.

You don't need my permission, Martha.