The Nanny State

_Gawd_

Who else is fed up with the nanny state - this premise that people are too stupid to run their own lives and need their hands to be held through every little decision that comes their way in life.

As a adult, I'm fully aware of the fact that taking heroin maybe isn't such a great idea after all. Or if I don't wear a seatbelt in a car by myself - I am the only one likely to suffer. Even more sickening is this talk about introducing a tax on chocolates and sweats because they're bad for your health by a minister that isn't exactly the definition of athletically capable.

Where does the nanny state draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

CardBordWindow

I blame Fran Drescher.

Seachmall

I'm not allowed to draw lines.

My nanny says I'm not to be trusted with a marker .

nomdeboardie

_Gawd_ wrote: »

... a tax on chocolates and sweats ...

Sweating at the mere thought of that one...O wait...:eek:

policarp

Off licence closed at 10:00 in the evening.
As if that's going to stop kids getting alcohol. . .

Monty Burnz

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Or if I don't wear a seatbelt in a car by myself - I am the only one likely to suffer. Even more sickening is this talk about introducing a tax on chocolates and sweats because they're bad for your health by a minister that isn't exactly the definition of athletically capable.

As long as the state is paying for your medical care, you can't pretend you are not affecting anyone else (I use 'you' in the general sense).

megaten

I quite like it.

Yakult

_Gawd_ wrote: »

this premise that people are too stupid to run their own lives

Because a lot people are too stupid to run their own lives. They need guidance.

wexie

Yakult wrote: »

Because a lot people are too stupid to run their own lives. They need guidance.

As unpopular a statement that might be, there does seem to be some truth to it. What about the people that end up weighing 48 stone and then make out like they're being victimised because the state won't pay for gastric bypass surgery?

Not that I'm altogether convinced that a tax on sugary drinks, sweets and healthfood will work but the idea isn't much different than the tax on cigarettes.

Agricola

I think they should draw the line at legalising heroin anyway! Fúckin hell!

Mickey H

Agricola wrote: »

I think they should draw the line at legalising heroin anyway! Fúckin hell!

They were planning on doing this?? :eek:

Dostoevsky

_Gawd_ wrote: »

The Nanny State

The British tabloids called: they want their rabble-rousing big brother paranoia back.

wexie

Mickey H wrote: »

They were planning on doing this?? :eek:

Well......if it's legal it can be taxed

Also if AGS doesnt need to worry about drugs anymore we can go after the rampant garlic smuggling industry that is bringing this country to it's knees

Mickey H

wexie wrote: »

Well......if it's legal it can be taxed

Also if AGS doesnt need to worry about drugs anymore we can go after the rampant garlic smuggling industry that is bringing this country to it's knees

On the upside, at least vampire related tomfoolery is at an all time low.

wexie

Mickey H wrote: »

On the upside, at least vampire related tomfoolery is at an all time low.

Ah sure...that's only cause we were getting cheap garlic. Now that we're back to paying the 232% import tax and we're not getting the cheap chinese stuff anymore it's all going to kick off soon.


I always knew something was funny about the high rate on garlic and I guess now the cat's out of the bag: it's a plot between Sarkozy and Merkel to get their hands on our oil....

Stiffler2

I for one can't wait for the mad session in Leinster House once we all take it over.

MagicSean

wexie wrote: »

Well......if it's legal it can be taxed

Also if AGS doesnt need to worry about drugs anymore we can go after the rampant garlic smuggling industry that is bringing this country to it's knees

Yeah because heroin addicts don't cause any problems. :rolleyes:

Procasinator

Yakult wrote: »

Because a lot people are too stupid to run their own lives. They need guidance.

I would define guidance as advice or information. I wouldn't label things like laws and taxes as guidance.

Sergeant

Yakult wrote: »

Because a lot people are too stupid to run their own lives. They need guidance.

Do we make out a list of those too stupid to run their own lives?

Procasinator

Sergeant wrote: »

Do we make out a list of those too stupid to run their own lives?

We do, they are called Wards of Court.

Deus Ex Machina

It's another one of the many distasteful aspects of government. There's nothing that can be done about it unless people are pushed to a point where they are willing to violently overthrow those in power. The political system is fcuked six ways from Sunday so that nobody can bring about substantial change from within. However, something like an uprising can only (and should only) occur if people are living in a state of complete turmoil. That is a rare thing in a Western democracy these days, so it ain't gonna happen, not while there's relatively cheap food, entertainment and dwellings to keep people from getting sufficiently enraged and dissatisfied and then going properly flip city.

Freddie59

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Who else is fed up with the nanny state - this premise that people are too stupid to run their own lives and need their hands to be held through every little decision that comes their way in life.

As a adult, I'm fully aware of the fact that taking heroin maybe isn't such a great idea after all. Or if I don't wear a seatbelt in a car by myself - I am the only one likely to suffer. Even more sickening is this talk about introducing a tax on chocolates and sweats because they're bad for your health by a minister that isn't exactly the definition of athletically capable.

Where does the nanny state draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at people refusing to wear seatbelts. Not only are they a danger to themselves but to to the rest of us. There are some who REQUIRE nannying.

Saw a right fcuking clown yesterday. She was smoking, texting while driving, breaking the speed limit, and weaving between two lanes of a dual carriageway.

Draw the line indeed.

Chinasea

Wow, I don't think we are in any way shape or form a nanny state.

Walk down the Board Walk at the Liffey - buy any drug of your choice in broad day light. Pick up any newspaper and read about some drugged up junkie getting done for yet another hideous crime with another 'mere 90 previous convictions under his belt'. yeadah yeadah yeadah.

I believe we need 100% more full on armed policing.

Nanny goat state more like.

Perhaps you live oblivious to the crime and siege we live under in this shabby shady going down the toilet city and country of ours - I say wakey wakey.

Remember how New York sorted themselves out. Zero tolerance.

longhalloween

_Gawd_ wrote: »

As a adult, I'm fully aware of the fact that taking heroin maybe isn't such a great idea after all. Or if I don't wear a seatbelt in a car by myself - I am the only one likely to suffer.

So when you're off mugging and stealing from people to fund your habit, or bouncing around your car killing all the passengers, you're the only one who suffers??

Selfish much :rolleyes:

Mickey H

wexie wrote: »

Ah sure...that's only cause we were getting cheap garlic. Now that we're back to paying the 232% import tax and we're not getting the cheap chinese stuff anymore it's all going to kick off soon.


I always knew something was funny about the high rate on garlic and I guess now the cat's out of the bag: it's a plot between Sarkozy and Merkel to get their hands on our oil....

Ooh, the sly, sneaky bastards nearly got us there.

bleg

We've had a few governments in a row now that have practised "nanny statism" and they have all failed, miserably. You'd think they'd learn from their mistakes and feck off, but no.

bedrock#1

Chinasea wrote: »

Wow, I don't think we are in any way shape or form a nanny state.

Walk down the Board Walk at the Liffey - buy any drug of your choice in broad day light. Pick up any newspaper and read about some drugged up junkie getting done for yet another hideous crime with another 'mere 90 previous convictions under his belt'. yeadah yeadah yeadah.

I believe we need 100% more full on armed policing.

Nanny goat state more like.

Perhaps you live oblivious to the crime and siege we live under in this shabby shady going down the toilet city and country of ours - I say wakey wakey.

Remember how New York sorted themselves out. Zero tolerance.

I think you'll find that we actually live in the safest environment/society that has ever been. Not really sure where you are getting this idea that we are "oblivious to the crime and siege we live under in this shabby shady going down the toilet city and country of ours" -

I think your problem is that you believe what Paul Williams and the rest of the parasite fear mongering journalists (hacks) tell you .....

And as for New York they have some of the most racist policing policies in the "free world".... You really need to check your facts.

Dostoevsky

Chinasea wrote: »

I believe we need 100% more full on armed policing.

Why? How will this popular policy in the US being imposed on this society reduce crime rates, which are in fact lower than crime rates in the US despite its armed policing culture? Is the GRA calling for it? Has there been some increase in murders of unarmed gardaí that you're addressing with this suggestion?

Or is it that, when all else fails, calling for more armed gardaí is the standard hard-ass response to give the impression that somebody's tough on crime (while being light on statistically-supported genuine solutions)?

Arguably the last culture in the western democratic world that this society should be mimicking is the gun culture in the United States. The counterproductive extreme prison culture in the United States, motivated by rightwing political considerations and the financial interests in the privatised prison industry, is just as much of a mockery of civilised democratic society.

MungBean

Libertarianism smells of shít.

Dostoevsky

bedrock#1 wrote: »

I think your problem is that you believe what Paul Williams and the rest of the parasite fear mongering journalists (hacks) tell you

In fairness to that poster, there is a large number of people in this society, invariably from a lower socio-economic-educational level, who believe this. In reality, however, this society is still both very safe and very socially cohesive by US standards.

This may change in the next 10-20 years if a sufficient number of newcomers do not integrate, or if this state follows the sheer stupidity and myopia that is current British policy on multiculturalism. For the moment Ireland is overall a great place to live in in terms of safety and social cohesion (both of which are fundamentally linked).

Chinasea

I don't feel safe in this city. We have had our house broken into, our car stolen from the city centre, my bag robbed off the aircoach, our elderly neighbour was mugged and fell to the ground near Holles Street Hospital and never really recovered and so on, all these ‘petty’ crimes carried out by feckless morons who don't give a flying f bout anything except their crummy little so called depraved lives. In the 10 years I lived in San Francisco not once was I thankfully the victim of crime be it petty or not. Not for one moment do I believe Paul Williams hypes up the criminal activities that we have grown so accustomed to and it if it wasn’t for the likes of Veronica Guerin our nasty little underworld would be even more rampant.

By all means bury our appalling crime under the patriotic carpet, but for sure it will come and bite you. Comparing our crime rates with any other country is futile in my opinion. Ask anyone who has been the victim of crime. You won’t have to go far. I doubt the stats that you list off for Giant countries like the USA will ease their pain. It doesn’t mine.

I want 100% more policing, not mamby pamby Garda Siochaning full on armed policing.

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

Libertarianism smells of shít.

What in the world has libertarianism got to do with this?

MungBean

_Gawd_ wrote: »

What in the world has libertarianism got to do with this?

Thats what your on about isnt it ? Get rid of the nanny state in favour of everyone having the freedom to do as they please. Sorry if its not but every time I see the old "I should be allowed to use heroin if I choose" argument and other such stuff about people having the right to choose to be stupid or whatever and moaning about a nanny state its usually coming from someone with a libertarian view arguing for "personal freedoms". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though.

Anyway personally I think things like drug use and road safety shouldnt be left up to the individual because there is always other people who will be affected. With the tax on sugar or whatever it really is no different than tax on cigarettes and alcohol. There is a cost to the state through medical care so peoples right to consume them should be balanced by the cost that has to be paid for that. So to me the line is fine where it is. Certainly in relation to those issues.

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

Thats what your on about isnt it ? Get rid of the nanny state in favour of everyone having the freedom to do as they please. Sorry if its not but every time I see the old "I should be allowed to use heroin if I choose" argument and other such stuff about people having the right to choose to be stupid or whatever and moaning about a nanny state its usually coming from someone with a libertarian view arguing for "personal freedoms". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though.

Anyway personally I think things like drug use and road safety shouldnt be left up to the individual because there is always other people who will be affected. With the tax on sugar or whatever it really is no different than tax on cigarettes and alcohol. There is a cost to the state through medical care so peoples right to consume them should be balanced by the cost that has to be paid for that. So to me the line is fine where it is. Certainly in relation to those issues.

No, it's not what I'm on about at all.

It's called using your head in general - if you associate that with libertarianism, then fair enough. Although, it's strange to see you advocating not using your head...

MungBean

_Gawd_ wrote: »

No, it's not what I'm on about at all.

It's called using your head in general - if you associate that with libertarianism, then fair enough. Although, it's strange to see you advocating not using your head...

See the way I use my head must be different than the way you use yours. I think laws that prohibit stuff that's dangerous to society and puts people at risk are good. You think anything that doesn't let you do whatever the hell you want is bad.

I'm sure we'd all like to live in a world where everyone would do the right thing but we dont. Thats called fantasy land.

44leto

The nanny state and the grandchildren citizens, lets face us Irish need some boundaries. We are a childish dependent group. Given half the chance we would become the biggest drug users, alcohol abusers, gamblers, debtors, and then blame grand-ma when it all goes wrong.

Us Irish we are nice but dim, we need caring for.

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

See the way I use my head must be different than the way you use yours. I think laws that prohibit stuff that's dangerous to society and puts people at risk are good. You think anything that doesn't let you do whatever the hell you want is bad.

I'm sure we'd all like to live in a world where everyone would do the right thing but we dont. Thats called fantasy land.

I don't know what you're talking about but it's obvious you haven't grasped the concept of the topic of the thread or libertarianism for that matter.

MungBean

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about but it's obvious you haven't grasped the concept of the topic of the thread or libertarianism for that matter.

You want to remove road safety laws and legalise heroin because you think you should be allowed to do what you want. Obvously not taking heroin and wearing a seatbelt is severely hindering your freedom.

You call the ability to make that choice instead of being forced to do those things using your head.

I'm saying using your head is removing those things before they become an option protects society.

Allowing someone to make the decision not to wear a seatbelt could end up costing other peoples lives. Allowing everyone to use heroin if they so wish would affect other people in society who end up getting robbed and mugged when the amount of heroin addicts increases.

Rather than let people use their head and deal with the problems that arise why not use your fcukin head at the start and avoid the problems ?

Understand now ? Basically a nanny state using its head is superior to the average Joe using his head because the state doesnt have a very high percentage of people who are incapable of using their heads and would fcuk it up for everyone else.

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

You want to remove road safety laws and legalise heroin because you think you should be allowed to do what you want. Obvously not taking heroin and wearing a seatbelt is severely hindering your freedom.

You call the ability to make that choice instead of being forced to do those things using your head.

I'm saying using your head is removing those things before they become an option protects society.

Allowing someone to make the decision not to wear a seatbelt could end up costing other peoples lives. Allowing everyone to use heroin if they so wish would affect other people in society who end up getting robbed and mugged when the amount of heroin addicts increases.

Rather than let people use their head and deal with the problems that arise why not use your fcukin head at the start and avoid the problems ?

Understand now ? Basically a nanny state using its head is superior to the average Joe using his head because the state doesnt have a very high percentage of people who are incapable of using their heads and would fcuk it up for everyone else.

So you are saying people are too stupid to take a bit of responsibility for themselves and that's the justification for the nanny state - pathetic.

MungBean

_Gawd_ wrote: »

So you are saying people are too stupid to take a bit of responsibility for themselves and that's the justification for the nanny state - pathetic.

No I'm saying why create a scenario that can be avoided. Given the problems that arise as it is from people not adhering to road safety and drug abuse what possible reason could there be to create a situation where they would likely create more problems that would negatively affect society ?

Your reasoning seems to be "I want to have the choice of whether or not to do heroin" (knowing you would choose not to anyway) when that choice would come at a great cost to society. That's pathetic.

Amirani

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about but it's obvious you haven't grasped the concept of the topic of the thread or libertarianism for that matter.

"Libertarianism generally refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power."

Sounds fairly similar to what you're advocating.

bedrock#1

Chinasea wrote: »

I don't feel safe in this city. We have had our house broken into, our car stolen from the city centre, my bag robbed off the aircoach, our elderly neighbour was mugged and fell to the ground near Holles Street Hospital and never really recovered and so on, all these ‘petty’ crimes carried out by feckless morons who don't give a flying f bout anything except their crummy little so called depraved lives. In the 10 years I lived in San Francisco not once was I thankfully the victim of crime be it petty or not. Not for one moment do I believe Paul Williams hypes up the criminal activities that we have grown so accustomed to and it if it wasn’t for the likes of Veronica Guerin our nasty little underworld would be even more rampant.

By all means bury our appalling crime under the patriotic carpet, but for sure it will come and bite you. Comparing our crime rates with any other country is futile in my opinion. Ask anyone who has been the victim of crime. You won’t have to go far. I doubt the stats that you list off for Giant countries like the USA will ease their pain. It doesn’t mine.

I want 100% more policing, not mamby pamby Garda Siochaning full on armed policing.

I can understand your frustration, I have been burgled numerous times and have been the victim of muggings and other types of petty crime.
The problem is drug addiction. 2/3 of all burglaries, muggings, handbag snatches etc. are as a result of opiate or crack/cocaine addictions. Violent crimes such as murder and rape only account for about 5% of all crime yet they receive upwards of 45% of news reportage.

Now, I have some fairly unpopular views when it comes to dealing with drugs - at the very least a medicalisation of heroin would go a long way in combating the types of crime you and I have been affected by. Total legalisation would severely reduce the criminal element who are responsible for the deaths of innocent people who have been killed in what can only be described as drug turf wars, punishment shootings and retaliations.

This is the dilemma that we as a society face. What would you do?

SafeSurfer

What are the limits of the nanny state?

The state just like the civil service in general have to justify their own existence.

This is done in societies like our own by spurious "protecting from oneself" arguments.

In other societies it is protection from outside forces Al Quieda etc.


In general society never questions the norms and rules we live under. If it did and collectively realised how unjustly our society was structured there would be revolution. So bread and circuses are still the way to keep society in check albeit at a much more sophisticated level.

Their are no limits to the nanny state, any more than there are limits to the "crime free society". whereby the act of picking one's nose is a capital offence.

Government does not have all the answers, society is and always has been organised to benefit an elite.