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

[JeremiahJohnson]

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...

Now there is the argument I get every time on this issue. It goes something like this, "well...smoking....and....drinking....and...eating unhealthy....not exercising....they all drive up the cost of health care which drives up my cost..."

WRONG!!!

The only reason my actions drive up your health care cost is if government is mucking around in healthcare insurance. If my insurance company manages it's risk based solely on risk elements of it's customers, then those who drink, smoke, do not exercise, etc. THEY pay a higher premium for their insurance - not me. So, the answer is to the healthcare issue and Nannyism is to get government out of the healthcare business.

Now, wanna talk about public schools?

 

[SERparacord]

The Obama Credo
By Stella Paul




I believe that a child who pretends his pastry is a gun poses an imminent danger, but 5,000 criminal illegal aliens released from jail enhance public safety.

I believe that New Yorkers must be protected from the risk of drinking 16 ounces of soda, but exposed to the risk of bringing Osama bin Laden's son-in-law for a civil trial blocks from Ground Zero.

I believe that every American child deserves to be loved and cherished, except for certain 16-year-olds who deserve to be killed by drones.

I believe that a Muslim woman who applauds 9/11 and admires Hitler deserves a State Department award for her courage, at least until someone reads her tweets.

I believe that the federal government should confiscate guns from law-abiding Americans, but give thousands of guns to Mexican drug gangs to kill our Border Patrol agents.

I believe the president should stay up late partying with Jay-Z and Beyonce, but hit the sack when our Libyan consulate is under attack and our Ambassador is missing.

I believe that plastic bags are a menace to the earth, but Iran's nuclear weapons are no big deal.

I believe that mankind controls the weather, but is helpless to get a job.

I believe that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and CIA Chief John Brennan are fair-minded statesmen, and if you don't agree, you're a Jew-loving Zionist who's under the thumb of the Israel Lobby.

I believe the First Lady should always announce the winning picture at the Oscars, accompanied by military personnel, and if you don't like the Academy's choice, you should be shot.

I believe that American children must be educated by government teachers about the danger of sexual predators, and fondled by government inspectors every time they board a plane.

I believe that America is rich enough to arm the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with 16 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks, but too broke to give White House tours.

I believe that government should keep its "Hands off my body," with the one exception of ObamaCare's 160 new government agencies that control my medical care.

American Thinker

 

[steveh_131]

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

Selling it is the danger. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. The sellers are the ones getting SWAT teams through their windows.

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

How so?

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

Did he hurt anyone? Illegal. Did he damage any property? Illegal. Was he trespassing? Illegal. Why do we need laws against the actual shooting when all of that was already illegal?

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.

Who defines 'drunk' driving? How much can a person consume before they are a danger? Why are we asking the government to decide that instead of focusing on personal responsibility, both for the decisions and for the consequences (Which ought to be high, in my opinion).

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.

Yeah but what if you're the one selling it? That's the issue, and that's where the legislation comes in. Are you endangering others by selling it? The government believes that you are, just as it believes driving drunk is endangering others. If we empower our government to legislate one, then it will try to legislate the other.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Steveh:

I follow you on the selling raw milk now. Selling food items does require some sort of standard to be sure there are no victims. I can see that.

Driving intoxicated is dangerous. Agreed. Who decides? Well it's not someone with no science degree and with a dog in the fight. That's where the 10-lb heads come in and determine some way of measuring how drunk is too drunk. Don't think that's nannyism because that is a crime with a victim. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't touch it. Murder would, but are we going to wait for the accident to happen and then go after the guy that's responsible?

ND's are dangerous - they should be illegal and are - we don't wait for the murder to happen to make ND's illegal. ND's are an infringement on my rights - not nannyism.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now there is the argument I get every time on this issue. It goes something like this, "well...smoking....and....drinking....and...eating unhealthy....not exercising....they all drive up the cost of health care which drives up my cost..."

WRONG!!!

The only reason my actions drive up your health care cost is if government is mucking around in healthcare insurance. If my insurance company manages it's risk based solely on risk elements of it's customers, then those who drink, smoke, do not exercise, etc. THEY pay a higher premium for their insurance - not me. So, the answer is to the healthcare issue and Nannyism is to get government out of the healthcare business.

Now, wanna talk about public schools?

Actually the whole concept of group health insurance is to pool my risks with many others (with varying degrees of their own risks) and the insurance company charges the group an individual fee/premium based on its calculations on the odds of having to pay out on claims. Obviously, this market is far more convoluted with government mandates and other such drivers. But if we are in the same group and you live a relatively unhealthy or risky lifestyle which causes the group's health care expenditures to exceed the insurance company's profitability threshold for the plan, you do affect my healthcare cost--when they raise the group's premiums. However, participation in this group plan should be voluntary and you would know, by your participation what the rules of the game are.

 

[ViperJock]

Now there is the argument I get every time on this issue. It goes something like this, "well...smoking....and....drinking....and...eating unhealthy....not exercising....they all drive up the cost of health care which drives up my cost..."

WRONG!!!

The only reason my actions drive up your health care cost is if government is mucking around in healthcare insurance. If my insurance company manages it's risk based solely on risk elements of it's customers, then those who drink, smoke, do not exercise, etc. THEY pay a higher premium for their insurance - not me. So, the answer is to the healthcare issue and Nannyism is to get government out of the healthcare business.

Now, wanna talk about public schools?

Or how about the ones with no insurance? What about the ones with medicare? what about the ones with medicaid? All of those people receive tax payer funded health care and they are also typically the largest abusers of the system. So you would be wrong on this count. If you were talking about limiting health care to paying customers you would be right.

 

[steveh_131]

I follow you on the selling raw milk now. Selling food items does require some sort of standard to be sure there are no victims. I can see that.

Who says the government ought to provide that standard?

Driving intoxicated is dangerous. Agreed. Who decides? Well it's not someone with no science degree and with a dog in the fight. That's where the 10-lb heads come in and determine some way of measuring how drunk is too drunk.

That's not what happens and that's not how government works. It will always be someone with no science degree and a dog in the fight. It will be zero-tolerance and it will be ineffective.

Don't think that's nannyism because that is a crime with a victim.

You're missing the distinction. Having 3 beers and driving safely home involves no victims but may be a crime, depending on how much you had for dinner and how big you are.

It is a victimless crime.

ND's are dangerous - they should be illegal and are - we don't wait for the murder to happen to make ND's illegal. ND's are an infringement on my rights - not nannyism.

Some people think that you owning a firearm is dangerous and an infringement on their rights. How do you feel about that?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Actually the whole concept of group health insurance is to pool my risks with many others (with varying degrees of their own risks) and the insurance company charges the group an individual fee/premium based on its calculations on the odds of having to pay out on claims. Obviously, this market is far more convoluted with government mandates and other such drivers. But if we are in the same group and you live a relatively unhealthy or risky lifestyle which causes the group's health care expenditures to exceed the insurance company's profitability threshold for the plan, you do affect my healthcare cost--when they raise the group's premiums. However, participation in this group plan should be voluntary and you would know, by your participation what the rules of the game are.

Read you five by five. However, If I choose to be in a group, then so be it. I can't accept the lower over all rate - due to being in a group - then complain about the cost because some in the group are unhealthy or live riskier lives. Otherwise, I choose to go my own health insurance. Can't have it both ways.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Some people think that you owning a firearm is dangerous and an infringement on their rights. How do you feel about that?

Well, it took a long time, but it was worth the wait. Thank you for helping us all finally get to the point that was implied by our much wiser and smarter overseer of justice and truth Piers Morgan. Here we go!

Of your other points - I never said government is perfect, but it's the only way we have of establishing and enforcing universal standards - don't want to argue that point any more, I'm bored. Blame it on my ADD, or as my parents called it (right before the beatings) - being an ass.

Is owning a firearm, or high capacity magazine, or (insert your gun control favorite) inherantly dangerous? You and I already know the answer, a deafening NO! "They" - the nannys - disagree.

 

[steveh_131]

Is owning a firearm, or high capacity magazine, or (insert your gun control favorite) inherantly dangerous? You and I already know the answer, a deafening NO! "They" - the nannys - disagree.

The problem lies in the standard you use to measure the tyranny of a law:

Just how 'dangerous' is the activity?

By using that standard, you are opening up the door to all sorts of things, gun control included. Is owning a gun inherently dangerous? Yes. Why do you think gun owners encourage constant safety training and enormous gun safes? Even experienced gun owners hurt themselves and others.

Ever done anything irresponsible with a gun, perhaps by accident? I have. I have friends who have. Otherwise responsible friends. Nobody was hurt, thank God. Should they be in prison right now for almost hurting someone? Should guns be prohibited as a result?

It is just as dangerous to drive while tired as it is to drive while intoxicated.

Driving Drowsy as Bad as Driving Drunk - US News and World Report

By your standard that should be illegal, right? What if scientists created a device that could measure how many hours you've slept in the past day? How many hours should be legal? 4? 6?

Time to pick a new standard.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The problem lies in the standard you use to measure the tyranny of a law:

Just how 'dangerous' is the activity?

By using that standard, you are opening up the door to all sorts of things, gun control included. Is owning a gun inherently dangerous? Yes. Why do you think gun owners encourage constant safety training and enormous gun safes? Even experienced gun owners hurt themselves and others.

Ever done anything irresponsible with a gun, perhaps by accident? I have. I have friends who have. Otherwise responsible friends. Nobody was hurt, thank God. Should they be in prison right now for almost hurting someone? Should guns be prohibited as a result?

It is just as dangerous to drive while tired as it is to drive while intoxicated.

Driving Drowsy as Bad as Driving Drunk - US News and World Report

By your standard that should be illegal, right? What if scientists created a device that could measure how many hours you've slept in the past day? How many hours should be legal? 4? 6?

Time to pick a new standard.

Owning a gun dangerous? No. Using a gun dangerous? Yes.

The crux as they say is ownership and - here's the important part - behavior. If my behavior is (by what ever standard you wish to use - told you I don't want to argue that point any more) dangerous to the extent that a victim is inevitible, then we have a problem.

Case in point: Colorado's 10-year standing campus carry law. For 10 years students and faculty in participating state and private universities who carried the permit were allowed to carry on campus. There were ZERO incidents state-wide for 10 years. For those of you who do risk management or the infamous "Hazard Analysis" - that's pretty safe.

 

[steveh_131]

The crux as they say is ownership and - here's the important part - behavior. If my behavior is (by what ever standard you wish to use - told you I don't want to argue that point any more) dangerous to the extent that a victim is inevitible, then we have a problem.

A victim is no more inevitable in the case of driving after a few beers than it is in the case of owning a firearm that the neighbor kids just might stumble across.

Also, any thoughts on my proposed DWS (Driving While Sleepy) legislation?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

A victim is no more inevitable in the case of driving after a few beers than it is in the case of owning a firearm that the neighbor kids just might stumble across.

Also, any thoughts on my proposed DWS (Driving While Sleepy) legislation?

DWI and DWS (funny) can be argued a victim IS inevitible - scientifically proven - it has been proven. Over and over. Sleep deprivation kills - that's why truckers keep logs. Statistically, one can make a solid case. The devil as you have pointed out is in the details and what to do about it. The law is relatively silent on civilian non-work related victims with respect to sleep deprivation because the numbers aren't there like with trucking and the inherently higher risk due to the much greater hours spend on the road.

See, this is why I don't want to argue the standard. I want to get to the point that "the numbers" are not important to this issue. The gun issue. The Nanny's are taking over because the truth in statistics - not the fake ones being touted and going completely unchallenged (i.e. 40% of gun sales are not regulated) - is not important. The real issue I put to Mr. Morgan et.al is the real numbers point to gun ownership and private usage of guns is statistically safe. Dangerous, but safe. Just like knives, gasoline, chainsaws, automobiles, hammers, baseball bats and a lot of other dangerous things we use. They PALE in comparison to - say - number of deaths related to surgeons and assistants not washing their hands.

 

[steveh_131]

Whether you want to argue it or not, the standard you choose is the root of the problem.

You can argue statistics for centuries and you will not escape the reality that firearm ownership adds risk and danger to yourself and others. You will never make any progress by arguing about what is more or less dangerous. That will lead us exactly where we are now. A nanny state. And it is only going to get worse.

We need to re-frame the debate. The real issue is this: The government should not be in the business of managing risk or providing safety from that risk. The government should be in the business of providing justice to actual victims; people whose person or property has been damaged by acts of malice or irresponsibility.

This puts an end to gun control and countless other problems of government overstep.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Whether you want to argue it or not, the standard you choose is the root of the problem.

You can argue statistics for centuries and you will not escape the reality that firearm ownership adds risk and danger to yourself and others. You will never make any progress by arguing about what is more or less dangerous. That will lead us exactly where we are now. A nanny state. And it is only going to get worse.

We need to re-frame the debate. The real issue is this: The government should not be in the business of managing risk or providing safety from that risk. The government should be in the business of providing justice to actual victims; people whose person or property has been damaged by acts of malice or irresponsibility.

This puts an end to gun control and countless other problems of government overstep.

So I'm going to make the giant leap of faith that you've never professionally managed risk. You're not in the business on any level of providing a safe work environment. Otherwise, you'd not be so critical of things that are done routinely, everywhere, in all aspects of the working world. It can be done and is done. There is a right and wrong way to do it. Take a course on risk management.

The government has to be in the business of ensuring some regulation of safety is maintained in some areas. Off the top of my head: water, food, interstate distribution of electricity, interstate construction standards, ad-infinitim ad-nausium. It's a fact of life in the real world.

The point: The gun issue should be put to bed in the same mannor ALL of my exampes in the previous paragraph are put to bed - history in numbers. The only reason it is not, the only reason true government of the people is not envogue on this issue - politics. And that brings us full circle - On this issue we are to accept the Nanny's response "because I said so" or "because I know better" or "because it's obvious, forget the numbers".

I will never convince you (outside a course on risk management and a safe work environment) that someone has to set a standard and enforce it. You are set on anarchism and I can't change your mind.

If anyone else would like to discuss the issue of proving the safety of firearms ownership and useage I am all ears.

 

[steveh_131]

So I'm going to make the giant leap of faith that you've never professionally managed risk. You're not in the business on any level of providing a safe work environment. Otherwise, you'd not be so critical of things that are done routinely, everywhere, in all aspects of the working world. It can be done and is done. There is a right and wrong way to do it. Take a course on risk management.

I have nothing against risk management. I have everything against it being the responsibility of the government.

The government has to be in the business of ensuring some regulation of safety is maintained in some areas. Off the top of my head: water, food, interstate distribution of electricity, interstate construction standards, ad-infinitim ad-nausium. It's a fact of life in the real world.

Or what? Will the world end? Private organizations exist to provide standards and regulation in many industries. The government does a crappy job of it, anyways.

The point: The gun issue should be put to bed in the same mannor ALL of my exampes in the previous paragraph are put to bed - history in numbers. The only reason it is not, the only reason true government of the people is not envogue on this issue - politics. And that brings us full circle - On this issue we are to accept the Nanny's response "because I said so" or "because I know better" or "because it's obvious, forget the numbers".

Good luck with that, man. As long as you've got hillbillies in the white house shooting their friends while hunting and DEA agents shooting themselves in the foot while demonstrating gun safety, you've got a long road ahead of you.

I will never convince you (outside a course on risk management and a safe work environment) that someone has to set a standard and enforce it. You are set on anarchism and I can't change your mind.

Anarchism? Lol. Enjoy your nanny state. The government will keep you safe, I'm sure.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, the award this year for completely missing the point (drum roll)......

 

[steveh_131]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, the award this year for completely missing the point (drum roll)......

I'm not missing the point.

Gun control advocates want to take your guns away. They justify it in this way:
1. Guns are dangerous.
2. It is the government's responsibility to prohibit dangerous items and activities to keep us safe.
3. Therefore, guns should be prohibited by the government.

You want to quibble about the subjective nature of point 1 to prevent the conclusion in point 3.

I want to argue against point 2, so that point 3 isn't even suggested as an option in the case of gun control or any other nanny state laws.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I'm not missing the point.

Gun control advocates want to take your guns away. They justify it in this way:
1. Guns are dangerous.
2. It is the government's responsibility to prohibit dangerous items and activities to keep us safe.
3. Therefore, guns should be prohibited by the government.

You want to quibble about the subjective nature of point 1 to prevent the conclusion in point 3.

I want to argue against point 2, so that point 3 isn't even suggested as an option in the case of gun control or any other nanny state laws.

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

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?

 

[Bunnykid68]