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

[JeremiahJohnson]

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?

 

[cobber]

People never need the nanny state. Once you grow up you're responsible as a citizen to make wise decisions.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

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.

OK, I'll play, in the example I gave, MADD pushed for and achieved stronger drunk driving laws. Before that, at some point in history, there was no law against driving while intoxicated. Go back in time. The very first drunk driving law - you're there - do you think legislating intoxication maximums for driving is the government being our "nanny" or is that rational responsible legislation?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK, I'll play, in the example I gave, MADD pushed for and achieved stronger drunk driving laws. Before that, at some point in history, there was no law against driving while intoxicated. Go back in time. The very first drunk driving law - you're there - do you think legislating intoxication maximums for driving is the government being our "nanny" or is that rational responsible legislation?

Just for the sake of arguement:

I would imagine it was already illegal to not maintain control of your vehicle; to kill somebody; cross the double yellow line; etc. while driving prior to MADD. I don't know the stats, but I would imagine that tougher drunk driving laws reduce the number of people driving while intoxicated--but do not totally eliminate them. But judging by the drunk driving checkpoint thread, there are a number of people people that fully support DD laws regardless of their necessity or effectiveness.

Now, we all know people do stupid and/or evil things with guns. If one could successfully argue that common sense laws have reduced the number of people doing destructive things with a vehicle after drinking, why would we not want to extend that logic to some common sense changes to keep people from doing destructive things with guns? We may not be able to prevent all accidents or evil acts done with guns, but if we could keep crazy and/or violent people from accessing assault rifles, high capacity magazines, or possessing more than 5 rounds of ammo we'd probably keep as many bad things from occurring.

So, in the minds of people killed by drunk drivers, I'm sure those new laws were for public safety just as for today's nannies, gun control laws passed (in the past) and those common sense being proposed seem like a good idea to protect the public from unnecessary violence.

 

[level.eleven]

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.

Heh.

 

[steveh_131]

Just for the sake of arguement:

I would imagine it was already illegal to not maintain control of your vehicle; to kill somebody; cross the double yellow line; etc. while driving prior to MADD. I don't know the stats, but I would imagine that tougher drunk driving laws reduce the number of people driving while intoxicated--but do not totally eliminate them. But judging by the drunk driving checkpoint thread, there are a number of people people that fully support DD laws regardless of their necessity or effectiveness.

Now, we all know people do stupid and/or evil things with guns. If one could successfully argue that common sense laws have reduced the number of people doing destructive things with a vehicle after drinking, why would we not want to extend that logic to some common sense changes to keep people from doing destructive things with guns? We may not be able to prevent all accidents or evil acts done with guns, but if we could keep crazy and/or violent people from accessing assault rifles, high capacity magazines, or possessing more than 5 rounds of ammo we'd probably keep as many bad things from occurring.

So, in the minds of people killed by drunk drivers, I'm sure those new laws were for public safety just as for today's nannies, gun control laws passed (in the past) and those common sense being proposed seem like a good idea to protect the public from unnecessary violence.

Lol. I get called a kook whenever I make this argument!

I agree with this. A good simple rule: No victim, no crime. Legislating behavior is ineffective and generally a bad idea.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the difference is if your party or the opposing party proposed it.

 

[lucky4034]

LMAO^

So true... especially here on INGO

 

[edporch]

OK, I'll play, in the example I gave, MADD pushed for and achieved stronger drunk driving laws. Before that, at some point in history, there was no law against driving while intoxicated. Go back in time. The very first drunk driving law - you're there - do you think legislating intoxication maximums for driving is the government being our "nanny" or is that rational responsible legislation?

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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?

 

[ViperJock]

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?

Laws can't eliminate crime, but they punish (those that are caught) for being criminals.

IDK the answer to how much "nanny" we need, but I think people that do things that are known to endanger the rights of others such as drunk driving or shooting a gun into a crowd should be punished whether there is a victim in each instance or not. This is totally different that telling people that their raw milk isn't ok to drink or that they need a permit to put a new door on their house.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Laws can't eliminate crime...

Agreed. However judging by history, nannies believe an ever increasing tangle of laws, rules, and regulations will make the net finer and finer thereby stopping more crimes as they go. When all they really do is make more unsuspecting people criminals, and increasingly, felons.

 

[ViperJock]

Agreed. However judging by history, nannies believe an ever increasing tangle of laws, rules, and regulations will make the net finer and finer thereby stopping more crimes as they go. When all they really do is make more unsuspecting people criminals, and increasingly, felons.

Very true. Every sensible law begets 10 more that clarify it and 100 that go out on wild tangents. After reading Ayn Rand the first time I realized that the concept of "ruling an honest man." was already in play. Nowadays, I hear more and more people mentioning it in conversation.

 

[steveh_131]

Laws can't eliminate crime, but they punish (those that are caught) for being criminals.

IDK the answer to how much "nanny" we need, but I think people that do things that are known to endanger the rights of others such as drunk driving or shooting a gun into a crowd should be punished whether there is a victim in each instance or not. This is totally different that telling people that their raw milk isn't ok to drink or that they need a permit to put a new door on their house.

Shooting into a crowd is kind of a silly analogy. Who does that? And who does it without damaging someone else's property (already illegal)? So let's use your raw milk analogy.

The government has decided that selling raw milk for people to consume is dangerous for other people. (I love raw milk, btw!)

The government has decided that driving after drinking a certain amount of alcohol is dangerous for other people.

Both behaviors have been decided to be detrimental to 'public safety'. Why should one be legislated against and not the other?

There is an inherent risk to ourselves and others in nearly every action that we take on a daily basis. Let's leave the government out of measuring and legislating that risk, and focus on crimes with actual victims.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Shooting into a crowd is kind of a silly analogy. Who does that? And who does it without damaging someone else's property (already illegal)? So let's use your raw milk analogy.

The government has decided that selling raw milk for people to consume is dangerous for other people. (I love raw milk, btw!)

The government has decided that driving after drinking a certain amount of alcohol is dangerous for other people.

Both behaviors have been decided to be detrimental to 'public safety'. Why should one be legislated against and not the other?

There is an inherent risk to ourselves and others in nearly every action that we take on a daily basis. Let's leave the government out of measuring and legislating that risk, and focus on crimes with actual victims.

Don't entirely follow you Steveh - how is me consuming raw milk a danger to someone else?

 

[2A_Tom]

My brother was killed by a drunk driver, who fled the scene. Fortunatly our neighbor jumped in his car and followed him and notified police via cb (he was a volunteer fireman). He and police cornered the drunk, he was arrested,tried and sentenced to 1 yr in jail. Justice was served.

Really? Mid-day, 5 yr old boy, 35 mh zone, drunk, over 50 mph, burried boys head in 4" curb, fled scene, don't know if they even had breathalizer in those days. Vehicular homocide, 1 yr sentence.

He died in jail. He didn't get a chance to kill again.

Absolutly no to checkpoints of any kind in the US, with maybe the one exception of cordoning an area to look for fleeing or escaped criminals.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let's leave the government out of measuring and legislating that risk, and focus on crimes with actual victims.

I don't think this is as cut and dried as you think it is.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Very good friend of mine lost both his wife and son to a drunk driver who was arrested, convicted and sentenced. Served 6 months, then was out. That's fair. My friends wife and son were burried together. That was only 10 years ago.

There was a time pre-prohibition when driving drunk was "an accident". You might get an involuntary manslaughter. Maybe.

I am so very sorry for your loss blue falcon. Nothing can replace a brother.

The point is - driving drunk causes victims - it infringes on the rights of others.
Drinking raw milk - victimless.
Drinking 20oz sodas - victimless.
Possessing 30-round magazines - VICTIMLESS
Possessing AR15 - VICTIMLESS
Purchasing a gun from someone I don't know - VICTIMLESS
Firing a gun into another human - AH HA! VICTIM

 

[ViperJock]

Shooting into a crowd is kind of a silly analogy. Who does that? And who does it without damaging someone else's property (already illegal)? So let's use your raw milk analogy.

The government has decided that selling raw milk for people to consume is dangerous for other people. (I love raw milk, btw!)

The government has decided that driving after drinking a certain amount of alcohol is dangerous for other people.

Both behaviors have been decided to be detrimental to 'public safety'. Why should one be legislated against and not the other?

There is an inherent risk to ourselves and others in nearly every action that we take on a daily basis. Let's leave the government out of measuring and legislating that risk, and focus on crimes with actual victims.

I believe some kid fired into a crowd the other day right here in Indiana? So not sure how that is silly.

Drunk driving is inherently dangerous and almost always results in the wrong party being killed or maimed. It is easily avoided by either drinking at home or getting a designated driver. If you drive drunk its not "if" its "when" you hurt someone else.

If you make yourself sick drinking raw milk then hey, its your choice as long as you don't ask the tax payers to pay your medical bills as a result. If you want to live in a a backwoods shack that doesn't meet code, who cares? This is the kind of nanny we can do without.