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

[mike8170]

There are many, even here in INGO, that would agree a certain amount of nanny-ism is necessary.

There are probably even certain state and federally sponsored programs that even I would struggle to let go of and nominally, I don't want any government help not allowed by the constitution.

Because many here on INGO love the nanny state, though won't admit it. Liberty is all I ask for for. I read a lot of post, and I know who those who want a nanny state are.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

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

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a well thought out, reasonable, rational, realistic response. Thank you Doug.

 

[steveh_131]

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a well thought out, reasonable, rational, realistic response. Thank you Doug.

It's not realistic at all. Do you know how I know it is not realistic? Because that's exactly what we've been doing. And where did it lead us? Right here to the nanny state we currently live in.

You are fighting a losing battle against an enormous segment of the population that lives in an urban bubble and considers everything to be a terrifying threat to their very existence. And they vote accordingly. And there are more of them than there are of you.

You can't argue 'reasonableness' when you're up against people who are naturally unreasonable. Remove the structure that gives them a vote in what you do and how you do it. That's our best shot, in my opinion.

 

[ViperJock]

It's not realistic at all. Do you know how I know it is not realistic? Because that's exactly what we've been doing. And where did it lead us? Right here to the nanny state we currently live in.

You are fighting a losing battle against an enormous segment of the population that lives in an urban bubble and considers everything to be a terrifying threat to their very existence. And they vote accordingly. And there are more of them than there are of you.

You can't argue 'reasonableness' when you're up against people who are naturally unreasonable. Remove the structure that gives them a vote in what you do and how you do it. That's our best shot, in my opinion.

Democracy is the tyranny of the 51%

 

[steveh_131]

Democracy is the tyranny of the 51%

Oh so true.

 

[funeralweb]

It's hard to legislate common sense, especially when elected officials don't seem to know what it is.

 

[Libertarian01]

To Steveh_131 (et alia),

I think the problem is that while I believe my logic and reasoning is sound it has two (2) flaws that are difficult to overcome.

The first I mentioned was each human beings tolerance of risk. What I may be willing to do you may consider too risky. Or what you may be willing to do I will consider too risky. As we each have different tolerance levels we also will disagree on what an "imminent threat" is. However, this can be overcome if we, ahead of time, agree to come to a mutual understanding of how to define an "imminent threat."

The second that you covered was the creeping growth of the Nanny State. This IS what we have been doing. Some of it we don't even realize. We limit a drinking age. Why? We force car glass to be shatterproof. Why? We accept the existence of speed limits. Why? We outlaw many drugs. Why? Building codes. OSHA standards. The list can go on almost forever.

The car glass thing I don't mind as much because all it costs me is money, not rights or liberties. So I pay an extra $200 per car. I also save money indirectly in reduced cost of medical bills from people involved in car accidents.

I care less about rules that cost many than I do about rules that infringe on freedom.

Your issue, which holds significant merit, is that people and politicians do not think about why they are passing laws or what restrictions should be on them as elected officials, but only on desired end results. There are many laws and programs that do not even begin to accomplish what they were intended to do yet remain in force for years or decades.

Over time we accept these laws as a "way of life" and, as a problem remains, future generations continue to pile stupidity upon stupidity in a vain effort to solve a problem that cannot be solved. We remain blindly committed to the foolish concept that all problems have solutions.

We as gun rights advocates are just as bad as the gun control crowd in our unwillingness to accept the truth. The truth is that from the dawn of the firearms age there have been people wanting to do away with them! These people are good, decent, well intentioned, naive, misguided souls who will remain forever! Generations before us saw conflict with them and generations after us will struggle to preserve liberty.

We need to resign ourselves without hatred or malice that we need to be educators of the ignorant and misguided. We need to gently explain that while guns do horribly kill millions of people who died violently this is the price for every single human being to have at their disposal the force to oppose tyranny and injustice. That a firearm is more of a tool for good than for evil. That a gun is needed to provide a balance of power between human beings. The struggle against oppression everywhere has shown that force, while regrettable, is often necessary to protect things more important than life.

I believe that it is only ideals that are worth fighting for. If you can hold it in your hand it in and of itself has no value greater to life. What has value greater than life are ideals such as justice, rule of law, freedom, liberty, compassion, mercy, and brotherhood. These ideals are worth dying for and regrettably killing for.

But hey, that is just me.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I know I ramble too much.

 

[steveh_131]

Your issue, which holds significant merit, is that people and politicians do not think about why they are passing laws or what restrictions should be on them as elected officials, but only on desired end results. There are many laws and programs that do not even begin to accomplish what they were intended to do yet remain in force for years or decades.

Over time we accept these laws as a "way of life" and, as a problem remains, future generations continue to pile stupidity upon stupidity in a vain effort to solve a problem that cannot be solved. We remain blindly committed to the foolish concept that all problems have solutions.

This is absolutely spot-on, but I will add one thought - We are not only blindly committed to the concept that all problems have solutions, but that the government is that solution.

We need to resign ourselves without hatred or malice that we need to be educators of the ignorant and misguided. We need to gently explain that while guns do horribly kill millions of people who died violently this is the price for every single human being to have at their disposal the force to oppose tyranny and injustice. That a firearm is more of a tool for good than for evil. That a gun is needed to provide a balance of power between human beings. The struggle against oppression everywhere has shown that force, while regrettable, is often necessary to protect things more important than life.

I'm not certain that I agree with the bolded, nor do I think that is a convincing argument to make. If we look at the numbers, it probably is used far more for evil than for good.

Nevertheless, it is nothing but a tool. Without that tool and a government that respects our right to own it, liberty will be fleeting. So what do we prioritize? That's the real question. Do we care more about liberty or about a false sense of safety?

This same argument applies to every single nanny state law that affects our lives and our liberty.

 

[Degtyaryov]

The nanny state is when government infringes into people's personal lives and choices to try and protect them from themselves. It has no place in a free society such as ours.