What's the difference between "nanny state" and legislating laws?

[steveh_131]

I'll play but before we discuss why no laws equals better government, you have to answer one question:

I didn't say 'no laws'. Not even close.

Why doesn't step 2 and step 3 ever hit the senate or the house regarding other dangerous items that even more people use like: gasoline, chainsaws, knives, bullwhips, baseball bats, hammers, golf clubs, etc. People die everyday because someone recklessly handled something dangerous. Why - if your step 2 is all inclusive - are all these dangerous items exempt?

Because, as of now, they aren't considered to be dangerous enough. It is the exact same subjective reasoning that you're using to defend DWI laws but not DWS laws.

Let's remove the subjective reasoning and get back to liberty and personal responsibility (including the consequences).

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

What do you mean by "dangerous enough"? Who decides what's dangerous enough? By what measure are things more or less dangerous?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

...and "considered"...? By whom? Who is doing all this deciding of elevated or lowered inclinations of danger? How exactly are baseball bats and the deaths caused by them "considered" regarding guns and the deaths caused by them?

 

[steveh_131]

What do you mean by "dangerous enough"? Who decides what's dangerous enough? By what measure are things more or less dangerous?

...and "considered"...? By whom? Who is doing all this deciding of elevated or lowered inclinations of danger? How exactly are baseball bats and the deaths caused by them "considered" regarding guns and the deaths caused by them?

The government decides. They decide because you're asking them to decide, and then pleading with them to decide not to ban the objects and activities that you care about.

Let's take that decision away from the government entirely. That's my vote.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Fair enough: http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf

In the real world, what you're proposing will never happen. How about we step back in the world in which we live and try to take a stab at a real problem that can be solved. Look at that statistic above. Fight the strong urge to say the national nsc shouldn't exist, look at the numbers and tell me which one of those stands out and doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[steveh_131]

Alright, man. I'll play.

I want the government to keep me safe from myself and from others and from things that I'm afraid of and to ban things that might hurt me, but gosh darn it, I like guns and they really aren't all that dangerous, I mean they're only #8 on the list, and I think I should be permitted by my masters to own a reasonable number of them as long as I pass a background check and get the proper licenses and pay the proper taxes.

There, I did it without puking. Do I get a treat now?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Population (P) = 315,464,000
Life Expectancy (L) = 78.7
Probability in your lifetime of death by firearm assault (A) = 1/321
(P/L)(A) = Roughly 12,500 = Annual deaths by firearm assault/murder.

Is that true? No.

According to the FBI that number is rapidly declining and much closer to 8,500.
(FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8)


Working the math backwards that puts the real odds nearer 500 and gets you somewhere the probability of death by being a pedestrian. But then, that's not going to get a lot of votes for gun control is it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Dinner going to be late tonight?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

To your point the NSC is not being honest and no one is calling them on it.

The Media continues to publish false and misleading data, and no one is calling them on it. (FACT CHECK: A tired old gun stat still in service - Yahoo! News).

Numbers don't lie, but politicians sure do. The real numbers put the probability of death by firearm assult somewhere near walking down the street.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Dinner?!

Damn. This has been fun - and I mean that sincerely - but I do have to scoot.

It's been fun. I'd love to live in a world where we could take responsibility away from the government, but in the real world it's just not going to happen. So the next best thing I can do to get rid of the nanny is to fight them with the real cold hard facts and forcing the issue with them.

 

[jgreiner]

DEBATE: CNN’s Piers Morgan Says ‘People Occasionally Need the Nanny State’ | Fox News Insider

OK, granted Piers Morgan is not a legitimate journalist (that's why he's not still in the UK), but he and others coin the phrase "nanny state"; laws born of the government knows best. I have my opinion - anything that restricts my personal freedom where no one else is directly effected. My example would be I can drink all the alcohol I want BUT I may not operate heavy machinery such as an automobile while intoxicated.

Therefore, all of Bloombergs idiotic laws and bills do not pass muster in my opinion.

What say ye?

Piers Morgan is a dyed in the wool socialist...who believes big gov't is the answer for everything

 

[Trooper]

A nanny state is one ran by feminists who believe that the majority of the people are too stupid to run their own lives.

Have heard a number of college kids expressing similar views (you can't be a real democrat unless you have a college degree as you are too stupid to run your own life).

 

[hornadylnl]

A nanny state is one ran by feminists who believe that the majority of the people are too stupid to run their own lives.

Have heard a number of college kids expressing similar views (you can't be a real democrat unless you have a college degree as you are too stupid to run your own life).

What is your obsession with college degrees?

 

[level.eleven]

What is your obsession with college degrees?

And women. It isn't a Trooper pooper without commenting on women.

 

[steveh_131]

What is your obsession with college degrees?

Do you even have a college degree? Let alone a masters??????

 

[dross]

What is your obsession with college degrees?

I have a couple. I display 'em next to, but just below my graduation certificate from Jump School.


How far? All the way.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

My view on this issue has evolved as I have grown older and thought about it more.

One human being living on an island all alone, save for other plants and non human animals? No laws needed.

Several human beings congregating together, working together, cooperating for mutual benefit? Laws will be needed.

A law is a tool that we use to help us understand the rules of society. We collectively agree on using these laws for a variety of reasons, the most common of which is to keep as much as possible "fair." The best example of this is in commerce, where you and I agree on terms of exchange through the use of a contract. If we come into a disagreement we both know what the contract says AND we have an unbiased Judge who will keep the rules "equal" for both parties. So, if the contract says that I will mow your lawn for $20 and we have a dispute then contract law will apply. This allows all of us to know ahead of time what is expected from each other.

The growth of this tool is into property rights. If I purchase certain property certain laws will apply to me so as to not overly infringe on another persons property (or any other) rights beyond a minimum of what is reasonable. Again, we as a society determine what is "reasonable" by electing officials or replacing them as needed.

The "Nanny State" moves the law into an entirely new direction - predomonenantly. That direction is RISK! The Nanny State attempts to legislate with an overly heavy hand. Examples: seatbelt laws, PI laws, motorcycle helmet laws, smoking laws, sugary soda size laws, fireworks laws, etc etc etc.

The legislation of risk is the foundation of the Nanny State.

Now, in all fairness we do need to legislate some risk. We don't want everyone facing an obscene amount of risk just to get through life. Most of us wouldn't have a problem limiting the speed someone could drive through a school zone. 120MPH is probably too risky when school is dismissed.

Where we do start to have more issues in disagreement is in our individual tolerances for risk. Some people enjoy the idea of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft with a sheet on their back. Doug thinks he would experience an involuntary bowel movement and soil himself, and maybe throw up too.

So where do we cross the line from reasonable risk management laws to Nanny State?

My answer is not a good one, but it is the best I have come up with thinking about it. A law regulating risk is acceptable only on those things that pose an "imminent threat" to other people. Example of a Nanny State Law: outlawing smoking in a building. Why: Being exposed to 2nd hand smoke has been proven to increase the probability of cancer but does NOT pose an imminent threat to us. It is extremely unlikely that I will fall over and die within a year of entering a smoking allowed establishment.

Now: we will quarantine someone who has tuberculosis. It is extremely contagious in close quarters for someone coughing or sneezing and it has a 16% mortality rate. So for me it this represents a real imminent threat that needs to be controled, thus laws regarding this do not necessarily fall into a Nanny State category.

To sum it all up. A Nanny State requires:

#1) Laws regulating risk;
#2) Those risks do NOT pose an imminent threat.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rambone]

Can a man be a feminist?

A nanny state is one ran by feminists who believe that the majority of the people are too stupid to run their own lives.

Say there, Troop, aren't you the fella who repeatedly states that 74% of the population is too fat and stupid [1] to fill your elite boots? And your solution is that they should be forced into mandatory state service as an adult [2] for up to 28 years [3], after being raised as a child by the military [4] in forced military academies?

Burned any brassieres lately?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Doug, I will cut your yard for $25. Obviously you must live close by for that price.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
I'm old enough to remember that drunk driving has been against the law since LONG before MADD existed.

And growing up in the 1960's I'd read every day in the local newspaper, all the drivers jailed and in court for drunken driving.

So what you're saying is...

Just like with the MADD evolution, if we can just enact enough laws, we could eliminate "gun violence" just like the mad mothers ended drunk driving?

That's not at all what I'm saying.