Rules for Safety? TOo much?

[Chmee]

I think a logical extreme could be banning swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks, or banning fatty foods because they can cause heart disease. I don't know where that fundie shit came from though.

I understand that the rational mind can draw distinctions between objective and subjective 'benefits' of codifying mandatory behaviors. But ultimately it's still the State saying 'you have to do it because it's good for you.'

To think that there's a bright and easily defined line between 'good for you because your head won't get caved in like a watermelon when you fall off the bike' and 'good for you because you won't go to Hell' is the kind of rational distinction you and I probably take for granted ... but when my judiciary is telling me it's perfectly fine to require kids to swear obeisance to nation *and* god every day at school, and my executive branch wants a federal definition of marriage to be sure it conforms to certain Judeo-Christian precepts they hold dear, we're far enough past the top of the slope for me to think that it's got less friction than I'd like.

[Flagg]

I think a logical extreme could be banning swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks, or banning fatty foods because they can cause heart disease.

Actually, if there is a public health hazard at the beach, they will close it down. Similarly, they can and do ban certain foods or food additives because of health risks. It's just a question of where the line is drawn; those who pretend that there is no line at all are merely fooling themselves.

They close down the beach every few months due to the fecal count being so high from as far north as Coaco Beach, to as far south as Sebastion. They think it's the cruise ships out of Canaveral dumping their sewage tanks. But what I'm talking about is just permanently closing the beaches due to the fear of possible shark attacks, and banning the sale of Whoppers because of their fat content. There are people who would gladly support that legislation too.
As far as where the line is drawn, for me it's to where your personal actions will cause physical or financial harm to others. There are always exceptions of course.

[HemlockGrey]

Let me get this straight: you have no objection to letting them be killed or maimed, but you will stand up to keep them from being ticketed? What's wrong with fining people for this kind of stupidity?

My view is that it is the person's responsibility to wear their seatbelt, not the state's responsibility to make sure that they do. But it's not something I feel very strongly about.

[Flagg]

I think a logical extreme could be banning swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks, or banning fatty foods because they can cause heart disease. I don't know where that fundie shit came from though.

I understand that the rational mind can draw distinctions between objective and subjective 'benefits' of codifying mandatory behaviors. But ultimately it's still the State saying 'you have to do it because it's good for you.'

To think that there's a bright and easily defined line between 'good for you because your head won't get caved in like a watermelon when you fall off the bike' and 'good for you because you won't go to Hell' is the kind of rational distinction you and I probably take for granted ... but when my judiciary is telling me it's perfectly fine to require kids to swear obeisance to nation *and* god every day at school, and my executive branch wants a federal definition of marriage to be sure it conforms to certain Judeo-Christian precepts they hold dear, we're far enough past the top of the slope for me to think that it's got less friction than I'd like.

But it's a pretty clear distinction between "nanny state" and "theocracy". One doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

[Chmee]

But it's a pretty clear distinction between "nanny state" and "theocracy". One doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

I think you're right that one doesn't exclude the other ... a theocracy (or at least a government with theocratic elements) is going to use different parameters for defining the duties of the 'nanny state' than a secular state does, but that's their distinction.

[FSTargetDrone]

Let me get this straight: you have no objection to letting them be killed or maimed, but you will stand up to keep them from being ticketed? What's wrong with fining people for this kind of stupidity?

My view is that it is the person's responsibility to wear their seatbelt, not the state's responsibility to make sure that they do. But it's not something I feel very strongly about.

If the state and then ultimately each citizen of the state incurs higher costs due to money spent and/or higher insurance costs on trying to help people who are injured because they were foolish enough to not use basic protection, then those people should at least be financially penalized.

[HemlockGrey]

That is true. In fact, I would support a national healthcare system with exemptions for people who were injured in a car crash because they didn't wear their seatbelt, among other things.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The one thing that gets me is that I always feel terrible when I think of the misery or suffering someone's actions can cause to another, without actually laying a finger on them.

I don't think a child should ever have to see his father get a cancer-lung transplant. It seems aweful that people can freely spread misery to others and then fall back on "freedom of choice."

[Drooling Iguana]

While we are at it, let's raise the driving age to 18 and/or lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. If you can vote as well as potentially get drafted in the US military and then use a weapon and kill people, you should legally be able to drink.

Actually, I think that the legal drinking age should be significantly lower than the minimum legal driving age. Give the kids a chance to learn to drink responsibly before they get behind the wheel.

[sketerpot]

What's wrong with a Nanny-State? You need a nanny when you're a child because you don't know any better. Logically, a nanny would be superfluous once you grow up and start acting like an adult. The problem is that even a cursory perusal of traffic reports and the news will reveal that many of the adults in this country still act like children, hence they need a nanny.

The problems with a Nanny state are:

1. Inconvenience. The more the state tries to protect its citizens, in general, the harder it is to enforce without seriously annoying people.

2. Overhead. Enforcement costs money.

3. Potential for abuse. The War on Drugs in America is a prominent example of this. I'm not sure exactly what the optimum amount of state nannying is, but I do know that it has big disadvantages when taken to excess.

[Darth Wong]

What's wrong with a Nanny-State? You need a nanny when you're a child because you don't know any better. Logically, a nanny would be superfluous once you grow up and start acting like an adult. The problem is that even a cursory perusal of traffic reports and the news will reveal that many of the adults in this country still act like children, hence they need a nanny.

The problems with a Nanny state are:

1. Inconvenience. The more the state tries to protect its citizens, in general, the harder it is to enforce without seriously annoying people.

In the case of seatbelt laws, that argument is very weak. There is no inconvenience to everyone if you belt up, and if you don't belt up, you're too fucking stupid to be left to your own devices.

2. Overhead. Enforcement costs money.

Once again, in this case, there are no special seatbelt cops or extra expenses; the same cops who wait for people to run red lights or break the speed limit enforce seatbelt laws.

3. Potential for abuse. The War on Drugs in America is a prominent example of this. I'm not sure exactly what the optimum amount of state nannying is, but I do know that it has big disadvantages when taken to excess.

Everything has big disadvantages when taken to excess. So what? The point remains: you can't use the term "nanny state" as an indictment. The right wing has a habit of doing precisely that: inventing negative labels for things they don't like and then trying to convince everyone that the label is an insult, so people are afraid of it. Nobody ever dares ask "what the fuck is so bad about it"?

[SVPD]

What's wrong with a Nanny-State? You need a nanny when you're a child because you don't know any better. Logically, a nanny would be superfluous once you grow up and start acting like an adult. The problem is that even a cursory perusal of traffic reports and the news will reveal that many of the adults in this country still act like children, hence they need a nanny.

Well, it would seem to me the biggest problems would be:

A) The state is not necessarily any more "grown up" than the people it is supposed to be nannying, i.e. the politicians and guys like me (the cops) may be more interested in extending their "nanny power" than actually protecting people
B) Not all adults necessarily need a nanny, but those who do aren't likely to accept that they do, so we get into the political false dilemma of "we have to do it for everyone"
C) The more "nanny" type rules you have, the more effort it takes to enforce them.

[Darth Wong]

Well, it would seem to me the biggest problems would be:

A) The state is not necessarily any more "grown up" than the people it is supposed to be nannying, i.e. the politicians and guys like me (the cops) may be more interested in extending their "nanny power" than actually protecting people

In the case of seatbelt laws, the state is unquestionably more "grown-up" than any imbecile who would refuse to wear a seatbelt. That is generally the case with most of the laws that the "no nanny state!" idealogues would want us to destroy.

B) Not all adults necessarily need a nanny, but those who do aren't likely to accept that they do, so we get into the political false dilemma of "we have to do it for everyone"

Not a problem, since a mature person is not going to be a macho idiot and refuse to wear a seatbelt, so these laws will never inconvenience him at all.

C) The more "nanny" type rules you have, the more effort it takes to enforce them.

By that logic, we should get rid of all laws.

[Mr. T]

Random safety inspections at places or work would go a long way I feel. Particularely places that hire large numbers of teenagers for summer jobs, as these are often some of the worst working conditions out there.