The Embarrassed Republican: The Nanny State?
The first time I heard the term “Nanny state” was in the early 1970s. While we all waited in gas lines, on the even or odd days, people complained that police might look at their gas gauges to see if they were just “topping off” or really needed gas. No one ever seemed very interested in my gas gauge, but if some jerk had made me wait longer so he could just get a gallon or two I would have been pissed. Those lines took hours.
Lately I hear the cry of “It’s the nanny state!” a lot, mostly about food safety and health regulations. When they banned the use of trans-fats in food preparation in New York city some felt their right to coronary disease was protected by the constitution. Maybe it is, but the right to contribute to someone else’s coronary issues isn’t. It’s the same with the proposed “Giant soda” ban. While that probably isn’t the most effective regulation ever suggested, the same dynamic applies. Buy 64 ounces of soda if you want, but the vendor might have to sell you 4 separate drinks while assisting you on your way to early diabetes.
We have all heard of the shocking “happy meal toy ban” in San Francisco. Imagine a government so enthused with itself that it imagined it could control who gets a toy at lunch and who doesn’t? “Don’t eat a healthy meal, no toy for you!” Except it wasn’t the “Government,” it was parents. Parents all over San Francisco asked for and overwhelmingly supported the ban, so it passed. Of course, McDonalds countered this dastardly plot by selling the toys on the side for a dime. Thanks Ronald, yet another victory for corporate stinkerhood.
It seems that any health or safety law is a sure target for accusations of “Nanny State-ery.” Smoking bans in public parks, food labeling laws and even seat belt laws have been accused of “governmental interference.” These charges mostly come from people who don’t seem to realize that it’s other citizens that don’t want to be fogged out of the park or want to understand exactly what they're eating and are smart enough to know that a lot of people are too dumb to wear seat belts unless you make them. “Oh, but Officer I wan’t planning to have an accident today!”
I’ve been snagged for my son not wearing a seat belt, right next to the Morris plains railroad station. Completely my fault, I should have been paying attention and he should have been wearing a seat belt. Strangely, after that experience it’s something he always remembers to do now, go figure.
Whether its the legal drinking age, DWI laws or even how old you have to be to buy cigarettes, someone is always convinced that their "rights" are being abused by the Government. But I always notice that while they’re ready to fight the “Government” to death for the rights of a 13 year old to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and drive around smoking two packs a day, they’re not so keen about going up against Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the American Cancer Society. Good decision, they’ll kick your butt.
The sad truth about the “Nanny state” is that legislators don’t go around just making up laws, your neighbors are twisting their arms and making them do it. The same neighbors who are tired of their medical insurance premiums constantly going up to protect our freedom to abuse ourselves.
So the next time you’re tempted to blame the government for making you sort the recycling or not letting you use good old DDT on the roses, take a quick look into how those laws and regulations came about. You’ll find a bunch of people got together and made it happen. That’s how democracy works.
Erik D.
4:59 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Well put.
Josh
8:34 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
So the new proposed ban on formula to new babies in NY hospitals, that's a good thing right. Ok it's not a ban just a bunch of hoops and then a guilt trip if a mother does not want to breast feed.
When do we start the group to force all out of shape people to join health clubs and exercise, or ban everyone from going to the beach to tan. Cause I'm tired of my insurance premiums going up do to bad hearts and skin cancer.
Thanks for protecting me from my own stupidity.
David Steketee
8:42 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
The issue of formula vs milk is a matter of health for the baby. It is not so much a guilt trip but an educational moment.
Josh
10:19 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
An educational moment that occurs every time the mother gets another bottle of formula. And let's look back 35 years when my mother had to find a new doctor because she wanted to breast feed and at that time the educational moment went the other way.
Prentiss Gray
11:02 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for that. It does sound like a great example of a concerned group making something happen. So, is concern for others a threat to their right to choose?
Josh
11:25 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
When the concern for others becomes a law banning ones choice, than yes I would say it is a threat.
Prentiss Gray
3:07 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2012
Or are there things you should not choose? Things you might choose that would hurt another's rights or society as a whole. A mother might choose to feed her baby formula, but that may well not be a good choice for the baby. We can only go on what we know, a kind of best knowledge available rule.
Josh
8:08 am on Monday, August 27, 2012
You are completely right. And when the Government is telling us/guiding us to what that best decision should be, then it is acting as our nanny. Therefore we have a nanny state.
Prentiss Gray
9:11 am on Monday, August 27, 2012
The point is that it's not the "government," it's your fellow citizens.
Josh
11:18 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
So my fellow citizens know whats better for me than I do. And would you be OK if our fellow citizens decided that is was unhealthy for adults of the same sex to be intimate?
And please let me know the citizen group that pushed through the ban on 16oz soda in NYC.
Travis
2:28 pm on Monday, August 27, 2012
I'm a big supporter. I tell everybody they have to vote for you. I'm sure you're gonna win. Everybody I know is gonna vote for you. I was gonna put one of your stickers in my taxi. But the company said it was against their policy. But they don't know. They're jerks. Let me tell you.
CoolBreeze
12:26 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
First, I challenge your assumption that my medical insurance rates are going up because of the destructive behavior of a few. While it may be a contributing factor I blame ambulance chasing lawyers (like John Edwards) bringing frivolous lawsuits for anything no matter how absurd as the cause of my medical rates going up. What's a newly minted doctor's malpractice insurance run, $75k a year? For a person with no patients?
Second, we live in a Republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately our elected officials lack the moral fiber to do what is right for the country and only care about getting re-elected. Like it or not there has been a steady transfer of wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world for the past 40 years as manufacturing was outsourced. As such, there are no simple solutions and it is easier to grandstand with silly laws on the size of the soda you can buy, for example, or demonize the other side and wait for them to make a mistake then actually have a dialog about the sacrifices necessary to right the country. Talk to me about your vision of democracy when 51% of the people decide it is not fair that anyone has more wealth then they do and vote to confiscate the minority's (the top 49%) homes, possessions, and bank accounts.
We don't live in a nanny state, we live in a state of denial.
Prentiss Gray
12:51 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Josh - if enough of your fellow citizens decide they know better than you do, they will get a law passed. That's the reality of our system, no matter what you call it.
Good question on the soda ban, but it isn't a regulation yet as far as I know, just a Proposal. As for the supporters, and the enemies of the proposal, take a look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/nyregion/at-hearing-on-soda-ban-strong-words-both-sides.html
On "frivolous law suits", I'm sure I agree it's a cost of doing business for insurance companies. On whether they are frivolous or not, I think there are too many cases where they are anything but frivolous. That, I believe, is best left up to a jury and not legislators (in case you wanted to find my position on tort reform).
Josh
1:06 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
So explain again how civil rights passed, when at the time a majority of the people would not have passed those laws.
Prentiss Gray
4:42 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
I think your wrong about that Josh. The bill's support in the north out-numbered the mostly southern citizens that were against it, on a popular basis. However it's not always about how many citizens are behind it, it's more about how determined the citizens who are behind something are. The passage was the first time in history a filibuster was actually shut down on a civil rights bill, you need a lot of votes for that. It shows a lot of support.
CoolBreeze
1:14 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
That cost of doing business is passerd on directly to the consumer, namely us. That's what Obama Care missed - there are no caps on rewards for slip and fall accidents and more importantly there is no penalty for bringing a frivolous law suit. In pretty much every other country if you bring a suit and lose you pay penalities - not just the other side's costs. Really, once the drug and insurance companies got behind Obama care you knew it was no good for us.
How about this - regulate the return on equity of insurance companies (just lke we regulate public utilities), impose penalities for bringing/losing frivlous law suits, allow interstae competiton for helath insurance, and establish an 'assigned risk' catagory to insure no one with a pre-existing condition is refused coverage?
That's got to be a better plan then what the bozo's in congress came up with.
Prentiss Gray
4:33 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
There will be caps on what the companies can charge, the affordable care act does bring interstate competition, although someone in NJ won't get a better price from an Arizona company. Healthcare cost more here. Who would decide what frivolous was ?
Matt Giordano
1:25 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Ok people, please rally to get the candy manufacturers to produce smaller packages of candy. I cannot help myself when I purchase a box of Good & Plenty and "have" to eat the entire contents. Because of my lack of self control I am eating more calories, fat, and other not-so-good ingredients. This happens because manufacturers are still on the Super Size binge and I am unable to purchase small packages of candy. This situation is not limited to Good & Plenty.
Can you help? Perhaps someone can organize a citizens group to protect me from the profit motivated capitalists and myself?