# Nanny state - agree/disagree



## sinbadsailor (3 Aug 2007)

It seems year after year we are losing something that was accepted in past years, new laws affect everyone but the minority they were introduced to catch, privacy is something that only the people with something to hide are worried about.

Taking a step  back to look at this and I have to say, yes , Nanny State it is....1984 stuff imho?


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

What specific issues are you referring to?

What about all the rights/freedoms that have been gained over the years - for example...

Divorce
Legalisation of homosexuality
Unplanned pregnancy information/counselling including information on options such as abortion
Much less strict censorship than in previous decades
Establishment of many statutory organisations to deal with citizens' complaints in various areas (e.g. the various ombudsmans' offices etc.)
More comprehensive rights for employees
...


----------



## sinbadsailor (3 Aug 2007)

Yes, of course some things have improved like in the list you mentioned, I was talking more about peoples lack of choice to do what they want without barriers under taxation, planning, private information etc.

If I want to leave a city environment for a better standard of living and live in the country, I can't just build a house and move.

If I want to buy a better/get a better deal on a car from elsewhere in a european market that we are now part of, I can't unless I compensate my govt illegaly.

If I want to buy a mobile phone in the future I will have to give personal information to register it.

If I want to give my kids some money when I die, they are penalised
If I want to own more than one property, I am penalised.

Car insurance companies are now pushing to get access to medical records etc.

All of these and more serve to restrict your life choices and to give out more of your private information to more and more disparate companies, organisations etc.

It's all just a bit unnerving, and unnecessary in my opinion


----------



## room305 (3 Aug 2007)

I do think there is a general trend towards state interference in how we live our lives. The workplace smoking ban is the best example but the puritans have their sights set on alcohol, fast food and 'legal highs' as well.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> If I want to leave a city environment for a better standard of living and live in the country, I can't just build a house and move.


Do you think that there should be no planning regulations and people should be able to slap up whatever they want wherever they want?


> If I want to buy a mobile phone in the future I will have to give personal information to register it.


Not necessarily. There is no specific legislation in the area proposed. Just talk.


> If I want to give my kids some money when I die, they are penalised
> If I want to own more than one property, I am penalised.


Do you think that there should be no taxation in these or any circumstances?


> Car insurance companies are now pushing to get access to medical records etc.


Are they? Tell us more...


> It's all just a bit unnerving, and unnecessary in my opinion


What do you propose as alternatives/solutions to the problems that you outline? We live in a democracy so the option is there to all to campaign for or against anything that they consider important.


----------



## sinbadsailor (3 Aug 2007)

I agree... it all just seems to much.
I mean since when did rational, well balanced adults loose the abilty to make educated choices and act responsibly when it comes to their driving, alcohol consumption etc, smoking etc?

The fact that something may be dangerous, unhealthy etc should not give the govt a remit to control it. By all means use the law to punish people who inflict pain on other as a result of bad choices, but this pre-emptive stuff is way to over the top.

We can take care of ourselves....


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> I mean since when did rational, well balanced adults loose the abilty to make educated choices and act responsibly when it comes to their driving


What unnecessary restrictions are there on driving in your opinion?


> alcohol consumption etc, smoking etc?


 There are no laws against smoking and drinking as much as you want. There are laws against smoking in a workplace environment but that's all. And licensing laws have never been as liberal in this country as they are today.


> The fact that something may be dangerous, unhealthy etc should not give the govt a remit to control it. By all means use the law to punish people who inflict pain on other as a result of bad choices, but this pre-emptive stuff is way to over the top.


 What pre-emptive stuff?


----------



## room305 (3 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Do you think that there should be no planning regulations and people should be able to slap up whatever they want wherever they want?



Not _whatever_ - the building should conform to certain standards to make sure it doesn't fall down but I do think people should be allowed build wherever they own land. Planning laws and zoning restrictions are an artificial construct which creates enormous potential to profit through their abuse.

Their removal would force developers to compete on the basis of quality and aesthetics rather than handing a localised monopoly to whomever got the nod and a wink from the appropriate local government body.


----------



## sinbadsailor (3 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Do you think that there should be no taxation in these or any circumstances?



To be honest I don't. You buy a property, using taxed income, pay stamp duty and other taxes throughout the life of property ownership. I think your duty is paid to the revenue in this respect.

You die and you are passing something to your children, they should not begin to pay tax on something again that their parent paid their whole lives on.



ClubMan said:


> Do you think that there should be no planning....



Yes, within reason and like the other poster said it has to be on a good for all system rather than a who can make the most money and profit system. You should have the right to live where you want, especially if you own the  land!


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2007)

The problem I have with the planning laws is the local need clause. As far as I know this is now being challenged legally.
In a democratic republic should all citizens be equal under the law? As things currently stand when it comes to planning permission they are not. This does not effect me in any way but I still think it is fundamentally unjust.
I do not think that anyone should be able to build on land they own or live wherever they want but where they are from should not be taken into account when their planning assessment is made. The same applies to the colour of their skin, their religion etc.


----------



## MrMan (3 Aug 2007)

I agree with Purple, planning is required to provide some balance, but the requirements of most local authorities to provide proof of a need to live there or to be a 'local' makes no sense. 
I also agree with Sinbadsailor on the inheritance issue, I think one generation paying taxes on a property is enough, it must hurt those who have paid for their family home to know that when they die the govt can still take a cut from it.


----------



## shnaek (3 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I do think there is a general trend towards state interference in how we live our lives.



I agree with this POV. I wonder is it something that happens when a country gets rich? The majority have always had the right to impose laws for the general good, but these days those laws seem to encroach more and more on the individuals personal freedoms.

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a tolerant and understanding society, but also one which -when laws and freedoms are abused - the punishment is harsh. However, laws shouldn't be there to put hardships on the normal Joe Soap.

Each day I see restrictions on our freedoms, not just here, but worldwide. We need to be very careful about this. This is an example of what I am talking about:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/02/dna_powers/
 where Police in the UK want DNA collection powers even for minor offences.

Laws need to be constantly challenged in order to remain vibrant and relevant. This only seems to happen when a nation is angry, and that doesn't really happen when a nations economy is booming.


----------



## sinbadsailor (3 Aug 2007)

Two words - Population Control.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Two words - Population Control.


Seven words - what the hell are you on about?


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Two words - Population Control.



One word - Huh?


----------



## nelly (3 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I do think there is a general trend towards state interference in how we live our lives. The workplace smoking ban is the best example but the puritans have their sights set on alcohol, fast food and 'legal highs' as well.


the ban is on smoking around other people and harming their health while they work. Smoking is not banned. Smoke your own brains and lungs out but not next to me (or your children). Drives me nuts to hear that sited as an example in this context. Its a protection of right to clean working environment if anything.


----------



## room305 (3 Aug 2007)

nelly said:


> the ban is on smoking around other people and harming their health while they work. Smoking is not banned. Smoke your own brains and lungs out but not next to me (or your children). Drives me nuts to hear that sited as an example in this context. Its a protection of right to clean working environment if anything.



Well I don't smoke but I deplore puritanical nonsense dressed up as a civil liberties issue. I can understand the argument against smoking on aeroplanes and in hospitals but the smoking ban is state enforced behavioural modification. If it was just about clean air then why couldn't workers who choose to smoke have their own smoking room, or why couldn't a publican decide to run a smoking-bar and only hire smokers to work there?


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I can understand the argument against smoking on aeroplanes and in hospitals


Why? If it used to be OK in the past then why not now? At least that's my conclusion when I follow your logic on the general issue.


> only hire smokers to work there?


Would that not be in breach of equality legislation?


----------



## BillK (3 Aug 2007)

Why don't Governments just ban the sale of all tobacco products?

Oh yes, they make lots of money from taxing them.


----------



## Superman (3 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Well I don't smoke but I deplore puritanical nonsense dressed up as a civil liberties issue. I can understand the argument against smoking on aeroplanes and in hospitals but the smoking ban is state enforced behavioural modification. If it was just about clean air then why couldn't workers who choose to smoke have their own smoking room, or why couldn't a publican decide to run a smoking-bar and only hire smokers to work there?


Ash's proposal for a ban on smoking in one's own private car when one is alone comes to mind.


----------



## room305 (4 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Why? If it used to be OK in the past then why not now? At least that's my conclusion when I follow your logic on the general issue.



There are very sound reasons why most airlines decided voluntarily to implement no smoking policies. Not least because it allows them to cut fuel consumption. It also appears to be popular with customers. When Northwest Airlines banned smoking on their flights in 1988, many predicted a massive loss of customers but the opposite occurred. The increased revenue forced other airlines to follow suit. That said, I would support (though not necessarily fly on) all smoking airlines such as Smintair.

I don't see why hospitals couldn't have a smoking room for visitors and staff but it makes sense not to allow people to smoke in the presence of ill people. Although I'm sure this could be covered by hospital policy without the requirement for a government-knows-best act.



ClubMan said:


> Would that not be in breach of equality legislation?



Don't get me started on that crowd! Although I guess if they support the right of [broken link removed] not to hire smokers, they can hardly complain about the opposing case.


----------



## pat127 (4 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> I agree... it all just seems to much.
> I mean since when did rational, well balanced adults loose the abilty to make educated choices and act responsibly when it comes to their driving, alcohol consumption etc, smoking etc?
> 
> The fact that something may be dangerous, unhealthy etc should not give the govt a remit to control it. By all means use the law to punish people who inflict pain on other as a result of bad choices, but this pre-emptive stuff is way to over the top.
> ...



I'd agree with you completely if I'm allowed the freedom not to contribute that portion of my taxes which goes to cover the publically-funded medical costs of those who for example develop smoking-related diseases. Couldn't that be described as 'inflicting pain on others (me specifically) as a result of bad choices'?


----------



## room305 (5 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> I'd agree with you completely if I'm allowed the freedom not to contribute that portion of my taxes which goes to cover the publically-funded medical costs of those who for example develop smoking-related diseases. Couldn't that be described as 'inflicting pain on others (me specifically) as a result of bad choices'?



Do you also want to not pay the portion that is ordinarily spent on the health implications of other poor lifestyle choices as well such as drinking too much, not exercising or taking illicit drugs? What about people who are involved in accidents after knowingly taking stupid risks like driving too fast, getting involved in extreme sports or wandering around certain areas of the city late at night? Maybe you'd like the option not to have your taxes fund these too?


----------



## contemporary (5 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Do you also want to not pay the portion that is ordinarily spent on the health implications of other poor lifestyle choices as well such as drinking too much, not exercising or taking illicit drugs? What about people who are involved in accidents after knowingly taking stupid risks like driving too fast, getting involved in extreme sports or wandering around certain areas of the city late at night? Maybe you'd like the option not to have your taxes fund these too?



how about pay no taxes and look after yourself...


----------



## Gordanus (5 Aug 2007)

The term 'nanny state' really annoys me (whoops, maybe I'm posting in the wrong thread.)  It smacks of unthinking tabloidism, a term that means nothing and yet will rile people into agreeing.  Many things we organise as a community for the overall good.  Most of these are generally acceptable - laws against stealing, aggression, speeding; gathering together contributions to enrich the community as a whole - health, education, hygiene.  Only when a person disagrees with one thing (and they will - nobody is the average person) do they then react against it and use an emotive term lifted from the tabloids: the nanny state.  

OK maybe my rant is really against the tabloids.


----------



## pat127 (5 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Do you also want to not pay the portion that is ordinarily spent on the health implications of other poor lifestyle choices as well such as drinking too much, not exercising or taking illicit drugs? What about people who are involved in accidents after knowingly taking stupid risks like driving too fast, getting involved in extreme sports or wandering around certain areas of the city late at night? Maybe you'd like the option not to have your taxes fund these too?



Well of course I would! I used 'smoking-related diseases' as an example. I was attempting to be ironic however. It's as impractical in my view to suggest that we should be allowed to be free to exercise responsible choices as it is to be able to be selective about paying tax.

Society works only because we agree to exercise individual restraint, ideally on a voluntary basis but in practice some degree of 'encouragement' is required. In former times when people tended to live in tight-knit, static communities, social pressure helped to impose the necessary restraints. In today's anonymous, highly-complex and highly-mobile societies there is a much greater need for 'encouragement' via the legal system. Level of affluence has an impact also I believe. When survival of the community depends upon cooperation between individuals  - as it still does in parts of the world - the need for policing is significantly less.


----------



## sinbadsailor (7 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> What unnecessary restrictions are there on driving in your opinion?



The vendetta against speed. Limits too low on good quality roads, too high on bad quality roads. Basically the lack of intelligent decision making with regard to the setting of limits. Also the drink driving issue, which is ruining publican livelihoods in rural areas. Enforce the law, punish drink drivers to the limit. Again we are being told that at some time in the future any alcohol taken will have you off the road. Tiredness from a long journey impairs more than 1 drink! VRT basically protects the interests of the motoring moguls in Ireland and blocks our european right to source higher spec vehicles for better value than here.....



ClubMan said:


> There are no laws against smoking and drinking as much as you want. There are laws against smoking in a workplace environment but that's all. And licensing laws have never been as liberal in this country as they are today.



What about this new proposed change to limit the opening hours of the off licence etc. Adults can make a decision as to how much they want to drink and how often? No need to legislate here. Just enforce the law around unsociable behaviout due to drink. It is the idividual, not the drink that causes the problem?




ClubMan said:


> What pre-emptive stuff?



Basically all of the above. Trying to legislate every facet of our daily lives. Reducing a persons ability to make their own decisions in regard to their daily lives.


----------



## shnaek (7 Aug 2007)

Gordanus said:


> The term 'nanny state' really annoys me (whoops, maybe I'm posting in the wrong thread.)  It smacks of unthinking tabloidism, a term that means nothing and yet will rile people into agreeing.  Many things we organise as a community for the overall good.  Most of these are generally acceptable - laws against stealing, aggression, speeding; gathering together contributions to enrich the community as a whole - health, education, hygiene.  Only when a person disagrees with one thing (and they will - nobody is the average person) do they then react against it and use an emotive term lifted from the tabloids: the nanny state.
> 
> OK maybe my rant is really against the tabloids.



A nanny state is one which is excessive in it's desire to control its citizen's lives, right down to behaviour which affects no one other than themselves. You may not like the term, but it is as useful a term as any for an overly controlling state. 

Do children learn from being restricted and controlled until they are 18? Or do they learn by being given responsibilities, and consequences for abusing those responsibilities?

An overly controlling state restricts our freedoms in the same way the church did in the early part of the last century. The more people that roll over in the face of this excessive control, the worse (and less mature) our country becomes. 

Then the choice must be made: Would you prefer to be treated like a responsible adult and live in a country that treats you as such? Or do you want the state to do everything for you ?


----------



## room305 (7 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> Well of course I would! I used 'smoking-related diseases' as an example. I was attempting to be ironic however. It's as impractical in my view to suggest that we should be allowed to be free to exercise responsible choices as it is to be able to be selective about paying tax.



Surely it is just as impractical to imagine that some sort of benevolent quasi-dictatorship can be established to prevent people from making poor lifestyle choices? Is this even desirable? Today the apparatchik are banging on the door of someone's office because they're having a cigarette, tomorrow it's the door of your home they're banging on because you decided to kick back with a beer and a slice of pizza. Maybe the problem is the provision of universal healthcare - socialising the cost of poor lifestyle choices.

Your personal liberties are always in the minority - whether it's your sexuality, your religion or the fact that you enjoy collecting old postage stamps. It is only by defending everybodies liberties, regardless of how we feel about them, that we can prevent the state deciding to confiscate our own.


----------



## pat127 (7 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Surely it is just as impractical to imagine that some sort of benevolent quasi-dictatorship can be established to prevent people from making poor lifestyle choices?



What's the difference in principle between me hitting you over the head with a club in order to steal your watch, and subjecting you to the harmful effects of my cigarette smoke or knocking you down with the 1-ton blunt instrument I'm driving while drunk? All such practices in my opinion are highly anti-social, all can kill or seriously harm you even if in dramatically different time-frames, so if we choose to legislate against the obvious one, i.e. the use of the club, then in principle we should legislate against all. 

You see I don't believe that people can be left to themselves to make responsible decisions. In theory, being 'intelligent' we should be able to be so left but there is a world of a difference between 'intelligence' and 'intelligent behaviour'. How by any stretch of the imagination can speeding or drunken-driving be described as intelligent behaviour? Is there any doubt that such behaviour is anti-social? I wouldn't care if people want to shorten their lives through making poor life-choices but it's virtually impossible to do so without affecting other people and that is the problem that I see. John Donne said it well "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...". 

None of the above should be seen as an argument for the imposition of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. As in so many human situations the art is in knowing where to strike the balance. At the end of the day, the individual is free to use his or her vote to decide where that line is drawn. I have yet to see any marches protesting against legislating against drunken driving for example. The fuss made about rural drinkers and their inability to get to their locals was no more than a poorly-disguised attempt to make political capital out of the situation in my opinion and who in general actually gave a damn thereafter about their supposed plight? As for smoking, well I'll cheerfully admit to being partisan on the issue having watched too many of my friends and relations succumbing to smoking-related diseases. If the State can't save people from themselves then who can? Now that's ironic isn't it - we don't actually have the right to harm ourselves because as I've said we can't do it without involving other people to whom the State therefore owes a debt of protection.


----------



## Caveat (7 Aug 2007)

I think the level of 'state interference' we have now, even at it's worst, is infinitely preferable to the influence and pressure that has been exerted by the catholic church on the day to day lives of the people of this country.

Having said that, if the other much more damaging ills of society like street crime etc were considered,debated and legislated for with the same fervour as smoking etc, I'd probably be happier to live in a so-called 'nanny state'.


----------



## Gordanus (7 Aug 2007)

shnaek said:


> A nanny state is one which is excessive in it's desire to control its citizen's lives, right down to behaviour which affects no one other than themselves.


Can't rmember any laws on masturbating in private and out of sight....


----------



## z108 (7 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Having said that, if the other much more damaging ills of society like street crime etc were considered,debated and legislated for with the same fervour as smoking etc, I'd probably be happier to live in a so-called 'nanny state'.



Thats a very good point.  Theres plenty of other more harmful phenomenon which could be prioritised instead.


----------



## room305 (9 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> What's the difference in principle between me hitting you over the head with a club in order to steal your watch, and subjecting you to the harmful effects of my cigarette smoke or knocking you down with the 1-ton blunt instrument I'm driving while drunk? All such practices in my opinion are highly anti-social, all can kill or seriously harm you even if in dramatically different time-frames, so if we choose to legislate against the obvious one, i.e. the use of the club, then in principle we should legislate against all.



Well it's a matter of degree which is important too but your argument has merit and I'm not against any of the situations you have described here. However, there's simply no reason in the world why the government needs to legislate in areas concerning what we ingest into our bodies, what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes, or what a business owner has decided is acceptable behaviour from a consenting clientele.

None of this interferes with your right to breathe clean air in public or not be knocked down by drunken fools.



pat127 said:


> You see I don't believe that people can be left to themselves to make responsible decisions. In theory, being 'intelligent' we should be able to be so left but there is a world of a difference between 'intelligence' and 'intelligent behaviour'. How by any stretch of the imagination can speeding or drunken-driving be described as intelligent behaviour? Is there any doubt that such behaviour is anti-social? I wouldn't care if people want to shorten their lives through making poor life-choices but it's virtually impossible to do so without affecting other people and that is the problem that I see. John Donne said it well "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...".



And if tomorrow in its infinite wisdom the government decided that YOU should no longer be given the freedom to decide what you want to eat, watch on TV, listen to, read, or what religious practice to adhere to, would you be fully supportive of such measures as long as they could prove it was in some way for the greater good?

Your personal freedoms, whatever little things you enjoy that make life that little bit more bearable will be in the minority when measured against the broad base of freedoms enjoyed by others. If you don't support theirs because you find them personally repellant then you can hardly expect others to support yours if the government decides they are in some way a menace to society.



pat127 said:


> None of the above should be seen as an argument for the imposition of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. As in so many human situations the art is in knowing where to strike the balance. At the end of the day, the individual is free to use his or her vote to decide where that line is drawn. I have yet to see any marches protesting against legislating against drunken driving for example. The fuss made about rural drinkers and their inability to get to their locals was no more than a poorly-disguised attempt to make political capital out of the situation in my opinion and who in general actually gave a damn thereafter about their supposed plight? As for smoking, well I'll cheerfully admit to being partisan on the issue having watched too many of my friends and relations succumbing to smoking-related diseases. If the State can't save people from themselves then who can? Now that's ironic isn't it - we don't actually have the right to harm ourselves because as I've said we can't do it without involving other people to whom the State therefore owes a debt of protection.



As I said - personal freedoms are always a minority issue. I have absolutely no sympathy for drunk drivers and the right to drive a vehicle on public roads while under the influence of alcohol can hardly be considered a personal freedom no more than the right wield a machete in a public school. If you support state intervention to prevent citizens from smoking within the confines of a private property, then will you stand by meekly if the government takes a similar stance on any of myriad of other costly societal ills such as gambling, drinking, caffeine abuse, over-eating, dangerous sporting pursuits and the like?


----------



## shnaek (9 Aug 2007)

How about if the government decides it's for the greater good that we all arm ourselves. And that every boy and girl between 18 and 20 must serve a term in the army so they are ready to defend our country if we are attacked. Government can enact many laws which are for the greater good. Who's greater good is the question to ask.


----------



## annR (9 Aug 2007)

Most usage of the term 'nanny-state' I've heard has been in relation to speeding, drink driving and the smoking ban, and used by people who think they should be able to do whatever they want no matter what the effect on others i.e. have zero sense of civil responsibility.

This is the first time I've heard it used in any other context .  . I don't think the government is going to start randomly outlawing religions, stuffing your face on ice cream if you want to, or requiring everyone to be armed - we live in a democracy you know!  What specific laws are you referring to which are overly restrictive on our nation full of responsible adults?

Schnaek, your point 
>>Do children learn from being restricted and controlled until they are 18? Or do they learn by being given responsibilities, and consequences for abusing those responsibilities?<<

So how would we know what those consequences were if we didn't have law?

I was listening to a spokesman from Ash on Newstalk a couple of weeks ago and he was raving on about the evils of smoking and got a lot of abuse and angry texts in.  But I thought he made one excellent point.  All the anti smoking ban people who go on about a nanny state while they go out and spend millions of $ on a poisonous weed which will kill a lot of them!  Pretty ironic of them to be complaining about manipulation.  If they're really the responsible, intelligent adults they claim to be why are they spending their cash and health on fags?  Different discussion I know.


----------



## Gordanus (9 Aug 2007)

shnaek said:


> How about if the government decides it's for the greater good that we all arm ourselves. And that every boy and girl between 18 and 20 must serve a term in the army so they are ready to defend our country if we are attacked. Government can enact many laws which are for the greater good. Who's greater good is the question to ask.



We're still a democracy.  We could vote them out at the next election if their policies really displeased us.


----------



## room305 (9 Aug 2007)

Gordanus said:


> We're still a democracy.  We could vote them out at the next election if their policies really displeased us.



Only if they displease the majority of voters.


----------



## sinbadsailor (10 Aug 2007)

Gordanus said:


> We're still a democracy.  We could vote them out at the next election if their policies really displeased us.



We as a country don't have the ability to filer out the FUD regarding our governments ability to improve our lives.

If that were the case FF would have been replaced. Not to turn this into a pro/con a particular party but there are a lot of policies that we seem to have huge problems with and we didn't have the knowledge or the conviction to make change.

So it's all well and good to say we are a democracy, but in Ireland I think we don't have the first clue on how to effect change using that power?


----------



## room305 (11 Aug 2007)

annR said:


> Most usage of the term 'nanny-state' I've heard has been in relation to speeding, drink driving and the smoking ban, and used by people who think they should be able to do whatever they want no matter what the effect on others i.e. have zero sense of civil responsibility.



To my mind people who use the term in this way are doing so erroneously. If people want rights then they must understand that they come with responsibilities. Liberal licensing laws are not carte-blanche permission to drive drunk, or get involved in any other drink-related anti-social behaviour.

If you want your own rights to be protected you must respect the rights of others. The very opposite of a "nanny state" which seeks to abdicate all forms of personal responsibility to the jurisdiction of the government.



annR said:


> This is the first time I've heard it used in any other context .  . I don't think the government is going to start randomly outlawing religions, stuffing your face on ice cream if you want to, or requiring everyone to be armed - we live in a democracy you know!  What specific laws are you referring to which are overly restrictive on our nation full of responsible adults?



How can you be so sure? Already, the government has been tossing around the idea of additional taxes on fast food outlets. The Minister for Justice has talked of restricting the hours of off-licences and there have been calls to restrict below-cost selling of alcohol. Michael McDowell was forced to back down on a plan to further liberalise the licensed drinking market.

The trick is always to propose a certain measure - say extra taxes on fatty foods - on the basis of saving revenue on the health service. The debate then becomes one of a "balance sheet". Will say, the loss of jobs in the fast food sector outweigh the savings in the healthcare budget. This conveniently sidesteps what should be the central issue - "what right does the government have to try and control what we eat?". The debate should never be one of statistics but principles and governments that try to micromanage the lives of their citizens in the belief that they know what is best, do so in contravention of the constitution.



annR said:


> Schnaek, your point
> >>Do children learn from being restricted and controlled until they are 18? Or do they learn by being given responsibilities, and consequences for abusing those responsibilities?<<
> 
> So how would we know what those consequences were if we didn't have law?



Look at the much lauded on this forum, attitude of continental Europe to drink. Note as well that they tend to have far more liberal laws in relation to drink.



annR said:


> I was listening to a spokesman from Ash on Newstalk a couple of weeks ago and he was raving on about the evils of smoking and got a lot of abuse and angry texts in.  But I thought he made one excellent point.  All the anti smoking ban people who go on about a nanny state while they go out and spend millions of $ on a poisonous weed which will kill a lot of them!  Pretty ironic of them to be complaining about manipulation.  If they're really the responsible, intelligent adults they claim to be why are they spending their cash and health on fags?  Different discussion I know.



How do we know smokers are being manipulated? It's not like cigarettes are even that heavily advertised anymore. Liberty should never be dictated by _need_ or what (the state feels) is good, that's Marxism. Otherwise nobody would consider it preposterous if I suggested introducing a law restricting each citizen to owning no more than three pairs of shoes, on the basis that they couldn't possibly need any more than that. Or limiting the amount of airline travel they can take, or any of one hundred and one million different laws states could introduce for the so called "greater good".

You have to allow people the freedom to make bad decisions. Simple as.


----------



## annR (13 Aug 2007)

Room305

I take your points but don't the government also have a responsibility to do something about the 'greater good'? To a certain extent?   Aren't they supposed to encourage our society to be in good health?  Frankly I think they should do it more because left to our own devices we seem to be becoming being a nation of fatties.  That's grand for adults if they choose to be that way but don't children deserve a little better?  Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.

>>This conveniently sidesteps what should be the central issue - "what right does the government have to try and control what we eat?". <<

Aren't they encouraging what we eat rather than controlling it by taxing fast food?

>>Look at the much lauded on this forum, attitude of continental Europe to drink. Note as well that they tend to have far more liberal laws in relation to drink.<<

We don't have those attitudes to drink here.  We binge drink.  Perhaps that's why there would be a difference in the laws.  Anyway, I wouldn't laud any country's attitude to drink without knowing their statistics on liver damage.  

>>How do we know smokers are being manipulated? It's not like cigarettes are even that heavily advertised anymore. <<

I think they are manipulating smokers somehow because I can't see any other rational reason that people would smoke.  Think of the money involved - it's not a massive business by accident.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't view these things as random Marxist 'for the greater good' like your shoes example.  Do you have examples of actual laws like that?

I see it more as the government taking some kind of interest in the health of our society.  Surely that is part of their role?


----------



## RainyDay (13 Aug 2007)

annR said:


> Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.


They still do advertise to kids, well teenagers anyway - everytime they go to the movies.


----------



## room305 (14 Aug 2007)

annR said:


> I take your points but don't the government also have a responsibility to do something about the 'greater good'? To a certain extent?   Aren't they supposed to encourage our society to be in good health?  Frankly I think they should do it more because left to our own devices we seem to be becoming being a nation of fatties.  That's grand for adults if they choose to be that way but don't children deserve a little better?  Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.



No offence but don't you think that it's the job of parents to watch what their kids eat? I know I don't want the government raising my kids. I also don't think the government has any business encouraging (read bullying) people into behaving in a certain way. These things can get out of hand very easily.



annR said:


> Aren't they encouraging what we eat rather than controlling it by taxing fast food?



They're still indicating what they think you should do and trying to subvert your behaviour. I want to buy a burger, I'm willing to pay a price the burger vendor is willing to accept. What's the government doing wading in with it's big boots changing the price in the hope of me buying something else?

Chaos theory guarantees that this will have unforeseen effects. Look at all the government's attempt to control the housing market.



annR said:


> We don't have those attitudes to drink here.  We binge drink.  Perhaps that's why there would be a difference in the laws.  Anyway, I wouldn't laud any country's attitude to drink without knowing their statistics on liver damage.



It's equally possible that the laws being the way they are is the reason there are so many problems with alcohol. Either way, I don't think it's fair to curtail everyone's freedom just because some people see alcohol as a licence to act like an a$$hole.



annR said:


> I think they are manipulating smokers somehow because I can't see any other rational reason that people would smoke.  Think of the money involved - it's not a massive business by accident.



I couldn't tell why either but people do irrational things all the time - practice religion for one. Do we try and legislate against them all? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that almost everyone in the country has done something irrational and illogical that's possibly not good for them at some point in their lives. Doesn't mean it should be illegal, provided it's not harming anyone else.

Smoking is a massive business because there's a massive demand for it. Just like drugs, alcohol and any number of other industries. It's a choice people make, just because it's bad for them and/or we don't approve, doesn't mean we can deny people that choice.



annR said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't view these things as random Marxist 'for the greater good' like your shoes example.  Do you have examples of actual laws like that?



The list is endless - smoking ban, licensing restrictions, planning restrictions, "locals-only" property purchasing rules, helmet laws, drug enforcement laws, heterosexual only marriage, immigration laws, social partnerships ... and that's before we even get into the use of the tax system to try and micromanage people's lives.



annR said:


> I see it more as the government taking some kind of interest in the health of our society.  Surely that is part of their role?



I see it as the government confiscating a portion of my income to fritter away on experiments in social control. At best these plans fail miserably, at worst they have consequences way beyond what was intended.


----------



## annR (14 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> No offence but don't you think that it's the job of parents to watch what their kids eat?.


 
I do, but look around you at all the fat kids, seems like plenty of parents aren't doing too good a job there.  Don't you agree that it can be hard for parents to raise their kids healthily with the food industry peddling them junk at every opportunity?  Personally I would welcome the governments help with that in some form of regulation.




> They're still indicating what they think you should do and trying to subvert your behaviour. I want to buy a burger, I'm willing to pay a price the burger vendor is willing to accept. What's the government doing wading in with it's big boots changing the price in the hope of me buying something else?


 
I don't know.  Is this something they are doing at the moment - extra taxes on fast food?



> It's equally possible that the laws being the way they are is the reason there are so many problems with alcohol. Either way, I don't think it's fair to curtail everyone's freedom just because some people see alcohol as a licence to act like an a$$hole.


 
I don't agree that the law has made us the nation of binge drinkers and I think that is a total cop out.  So how else are we supposed to stop those people acting like a$$holes except by law?



> I couldn't tell why either but people do irrational things all the time - practice religion for one. Do we try and legislate against them all? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that almost everyone in the country has done something irrational and illogical that's possibly not good for them at some point in their lives. Doesn't mean it should be illegal, provided it's not harming anyone else.


 
Smoking in workplaces does harm others hence the smoking ban.  I'm not saying we should ban smoking otherwise - is there someone saying that?  



> Smoking is a massive business because there's a massive demand for it. Just like drugs, alcohol and any number of other industries. It's a choice people make, just because it's bad for them and/or we don't approve, doesn't mean we can deny people that choice.


 
No one is saying that, I just think it's funny that none of them ever refers to the tobacco industry as having any kind of influence over them but are happy to talk about nanny states.



> The list is endless - smoking ban, licensing restrictions, planning restrictions, "locals-only" property purchasing rules, helmet laws, drug enforcement laws, heterosexual only marriage, immigration laws, social partnerships ... and that's before we even get into the use of the tax system to try and micromanage people's lives.


 
I'm not saying all laws are perfect . . .are you saying we should have no laws at all?


----------



## shanegl (14 Aug 2007)

I agree on taxes on externalities from an economic point of view. If smokers clog up my nationalised health service then they should pay towards this. Similarly with obese people, pollution etc.

I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.


----------



## sinbadsailor (14 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.



And if the govt and their legislating/controlling are the 'people' you talk about? They are definitely affecting our lives and cost us more and more money each year?


----------



## shanegl (14 Aug 2007)

I thought it was implicit in my post that I only agree with these "nanny state" taxes if they are fair economically.


----------



## room305 (15 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I agree on taxes on externalities from an economic point of view. If smokers clog up my nationalised health service then they should pay towards this. Similarly with obese people, pollution etc.
> 
> I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.



I have a lot of sympathy for such a stance. Nothing galls me more than having to pay unnecessary taxes to subsidise the foolishness of others.

Governments know the best way to mobilise citizenry into accepting restrictions is to present them either as a cost issue (without this we'll need higher taxes) or as a safety issue (this will save lives). Typically the two will be combined in some way, a la the workplace smoking ban or laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

However, they never work in the way that is intended. In relation to the tax on fatty foods, there is much talk about taxing McDonalds but very little about taxing Shanahan's or Guilbaud's. So as a measure it could be construed as regressive. So perhaps we would simply tax based on the fat content of the food served? But then, some fats are better for us than others. Before you know it, there's an army of civil servants allocating different tax rates to different restaurants and food groups and we've created a huge incentive for bribery and corruption with very little benefit. 

I have been reading about Canada's attempt to bring in a fitness tax credit for parents as incentive to encourage their children to participate in sports. An incentive that would on the face of it seem like a good idea. Firstly the bill was challenged as being discriminatory to parents of disabled children who had difficulty being active in a formalised sporting environment. So the definitions in the bill were widened slightly to allow more pursuits to be considered. However, they realised then they were subsidising parents who brought their children snowskiing, jet skiing and the like - not really the original intention. It now looks like they'll have to set up a permanent roster of staff to investigate cases on an individual basis to decide if they merit the $500 tax credit or not. I'm sure it would have been less expensive not to bother introducing it in the first place.


----------



## room305 (15 Aug 2007)

annR said:


> I do, but look around you at all the fat kids, seems like plenty of parents aren't doing too good a job there.  Don't you agree that it can be hard for parents to raise their kids healthily with the food industry peddling them junk at every opportunity?  Personally I would welcome the governments help with that in some form of regulation.



Why not restrict how much TV your kids can watch (which tends to be the main source of pressure) or junk the TV entirely? If the government slaps an extra tax on McDonald's food is that going to persuade your kids to want it less? The pressure will be the same, just the cost of the food will be higher.



annR said:


> I don't know.  Is this something they are doing at the moment - extra taxes on fast food?


 
 It's just a proposal. Micheal Martin proposed it in 2005 and I expect it to resurface at some point. I see it as symptomatic of the government's desire to micromanage our lives.



annR said:


> I don't agree that the law has made us the nation of binge drinkers and I think that is a total cop out.  So how else are we supposed to stop those people acting like a$$holes except by law?


 
I'm not suggesting that our strict licensing laws were the cause of our long and sordid history with drink, just that they make things worse than they might otherwise be. Notice how the binge drinking culture is prevalent among teens in Ireland and the UK but not continental Europe. There are probably other factors at play but I don't think it helps matters.

Trying to stop people behaving like a$$holes by restricting the hours they can purchase drink is an illogical and ineffective solution to the problem. Better to target resources on punishing people for the crimes they are committing rather than the excuse they are using for doing so.



annR said:


> Smoking in workplaces does harm others hence the smoking ban.  I'm not saying we should ban smoking otherwise - is there someone saying that?



  It seems an extraordinarily punitive measure for very little benefit. I would happily defend anyone's right to clean air but I don't see why workplaces could not have smoking rooms, or why a business proprietor cannot decide to launch an enterprise that services the needs of smokers. Don't want to breathe the smoky air - fine, do what I do - don't go in.



annR said:


> No one is saying that, I just think it's funny that none of them ever refers to the tobacco industry as having any kind of influence over them but are happy to talk about nanny states.


 
 But it is a conscious choice smokers make, something that harms them but no-one else. Where they have been misled by the powerful tobacco lobby is somewhat beside the point. The state doesn't treat people addicted to fast food, sugar, caffeine, gambling or alcohol in the same way - so why the carte blanche on smokers?



annR said:


> I'm not saying all laws are perfect . . .are you saying we should have no laws at all?



Not at all, just less of them. Politicians are great on proposing new laws but very bad at getting rid of old ones.


----------



## z108 (15 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> The state doesn't treat people addicted to fast food, sugar, caffeine, gambling or alcohol in the same way - so why the carte blanche on smokers?



Maybe because smoking is the directly proven cause of death and prolonged illnesses with  billions worth of medical bills whereas coffee isnt really in the same league ?
Even saying that I'm strongly against a nanny state. It simply makes life more boring. If the state wants us to be healthier they could reduce taxes on the healthy option instead of increasing taxes on the unhealthy options. Perhaps ,annR, there should be tax relief for Church attendance


----------



## sinbadsailor (15 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> But it is a conscious choice smokers make, something that harms them but no-one else.



This is simply not true. It is the fact that smokers second hand smoke causes other people harm that the ban was introduced in the first place. If it just harmed the person that was having the cigarette then nobody would care and would let people make their own decision to ruin their health by smoking.


----------



## shnaek (15 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I thought it was implicit in my post that I only agree with these "nanny state" taxes if they are fair economically.



Who decides what is fair economically? 

I mean, if I don't agree with violence then I may not want to pay the portion of tax which pays for the army.
If I drive only to town and back, why should I pay large amounts of road tax for intercity routes etc?
If I don't use the train/bus, then why should I pay the portion of tax that subsidises them?
If I think everyone should work why should I pay for social welfare?

The government should interfere with our lives in the most minimal way possible for our civilised society to function.

But this is an age old argument, one which I think we will have to agree to disagree because people hold fairly strong positions on this argument.


----------



## shanegl (15 Aug 2007)

> Who decides what is fair economically?


 
Economists 



> I mean, if I don't agree with violence then I may not want to pay the portion of tax which pays for the army.


 
You might not agree with it but you still enjoy the benefit of their protection.



> If I drive only to town and back, why should I pay large amounts of road tax for intercity routes etc?


 
Ideally not, road tax should be pay as you use IMO.



> If I don't use the train/bus, then why should I pay the portion of tax that subsidises them?


 
You shouldn't!



> If I think everyone should work why should I pay for social welfare?


 
People pay for their social welfare through PRSI though don't they? I'm not an expert on social welfare myself though



> The government should interfere with our lives in the most minimal way possible for our civilised society to function.


 
I agree, but I don't see any difference between a blanket tax and targetted taxes based on what you use in terms of interferance.

We may have to agree to disagree, ultimately I think it comes down to ideologies at a certain point.


----------



## sinbadsailor (15 Aug 2007)

What about this....

- Motor tax paid per car and based on mileage + emmissions
- Tax on income @ fixed % rate of annual income, regardless of amount, everyones equal
- Health system, fully state funded, everyone gets same treatment
- Roads built and maintained by Motor tax money only.
- Public transport, paid by state fully, fares based on distance and type of transport. i.e bus/luas/train etc
- Price for everything goes up a predefined amount each budget, 3%
- Wages go up a predefined amount each year, say 3%
- Devise test to find out the 'actual level of alcohol' that physically impairs driving, set that as limit. If over, lose licence for 10 years and if kill someone, 20 years in prision or some other fixed term
- Devise 'proper & realistic' speed limits, using modern cars, with fully trained drivers for each and every road in the country, with an updat each time the road changes
- Begin teaching driving at secondary level school, with theory & paractical as an hour exam , giving provisional learners licence to work from.
- Let businesses choose their own opening times

Along those lines.....

Simple & transparent.

Life is NOT as complicated as we are led to believe.

What is it they say, the harder you try and hold onto something, the easier it will slip out of your hand.

Just let things go by themselves, it wont be as catastrophic as we might think.


----------



## Caveat (15 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> What about this....
> 
> - Motor tax paid per car and based on mileage + emmissions
> - Tax on income @ fixed % rate of annual income, regardless of amount, everyones equal
> ...


 
and then of course anyone for whom these proposals may be detrimental, will take a case to the European Court of human rights


----------



## sinbadsailor (15 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> and then of course anyone for whom these proposals may be detrimental, will take a case to the European Court of human rights



The only reason things are detrimental to people's human rights are because peoples human rights are ignored when making policy.

The whole idea is that change is implemented to serve everyone equally with no bias in race/colour/job & life status/where they live/whether they smoke/how mcuh they drink etc etc

If logical, intuitive, responsible and selfless choices are made then who can argue, only to serve their own selfish interests?


----------



## Caveat (15 Aug 2007)

Not saying I don't agree with you in principle Sinbadsailor, but unfortunately _many _people *do* argue to serve their own selfish interests.


----------



## sinbadsailor (15 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Not saying I don't agree with you in principle Sinbadsailor, but unfortunately _many _people *do* argue to serve their own selfish interests.



Well we'll just have to have a culling before we start the change process then...joking of course!


----------



## room305 (15 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> This is simply not true. It is the fact that smokers second hand smoke causes other people harm that the ban was introduced in the first place. If it just harmed the person that was having the cigarette then nobody would care and would let people make their own decision to ruin their health by smoking.





sign said:


> Maybe because smoking is the directly proven cause of death and prolonged illnesses with  billions worth of medical bills whereas coffee isnt really in the same league ?



Coffee might not be but poor eating habits are. Heart disease is the country's number one killer. Yet people who over-indulge themselves in food are not castigated in the same way as smokers - imagine the government passing a law forcing people to eat burgers outside? It's not just the government of course, I think the law reflects what is now societal acceptance of denigrating smokers. Nobody in my office smokes but if someone was leaving for a smoke I'm sure even the smoker wouldn't bat an eyelid if I remarked "filthy habit, you should give up". Yet if we were in a restaurant and I was to pass snide remarks on the ordering choices of an overweight person ("you sure you want extra cheese?") I'd be considered a monster.

I'm dubious about some of the claims made about the negative health effects of passive smoking. If it was really as dangerous as the likes of ASH make out then why does my health insurance company never ask me if I live in a house with someone who smokes? They ask about things such as my weight, how much I drink and whether I smoke or not but they never ask if I live with a smoker. Also, why was a complete and totalitarian ban required if it was just a health issue?

a) If a business caters for smokers then it is not unreasonable to imagine that the proprietor will only hire people who are either tolerant of smoking or actually smokers. If non-smokers aren't happy with the setup then don't give that business your custom.

b) Where a business has a mix of smoking and non-smoking staff, would it be that bad if the smoking staff had a room in which they could smoke? Nothing worse than walking into a building and having to elbow your way through a crowd of workers smoking and spitting outside the main entrance. Looks bad to potential clients as it creates the impression of the place being overstaffed and unproductive. Also, smokers suffer a productivity loss as they must physically leave the building to have a smoke rather than being able to nip into one particular room.


----------



## gonk (15 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> imagine the government passing a law forcing people to eat burgers outside?


 
Whatever my eating a burger does to my own health, it does not consitute an environmental health risk to others in the way cigarette smoke does.



room305 said:


> If a business caters for smokers then it is not unreasonable to imagine that the proprietor will only hire people who are either tolerant of smoking or actually smokers?


 
Workers may be forced through economic necessity to tolerate the risk, or may be ignorant of the risk. It is reasonable for the state to require employers to provide safe & healthy working conditions - this includes not being exposed to cigarette smoke.


----------



## room305 (16 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Workers may be forced through economic necessity to tolerate the risk, or may be ignorant of the risk. It is reasonable for the state to require employers to provide safe & healthy working conditions - this includes not being exposed to cigarette smoke.



The rule as implemented goes way beyond that and at the time of introduction suggestions such as separate smoking rooms or increased ventilation were categorically ruled out.

As Christopher Hitchens wrote in the Guardian of the UK smoking ban:



> Surely this is an issue of workers' rights? But that is true only if you assume that a person seeking a job as a waitress or barman, and allergic to smoke, can only find a job in a smoker's paradise. How likely, really, is that? If places of hospitality were plainly demarcated as "smokers welcome" or "no smoking", it is hard to imagine that all involved would not be able to find their way, unaided by the government, to the place that suited them best.


----------



## gonk (16 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> The rule as implemented goes way beyond that and at the time of introduction suggestions such as separate smoking rooms or increased ventilation were categorically ruled out.


 
These measures could only mitigate the risk from passive smoking, they could not eliminate it.

Hitchens is far too intelligent to have slipped in a phrase like "and allergic to smoke" accidentally. Its implication is that only some people are affected by passive smoking - highly debatable at best!

There are some occupations which are by nature dangerous, say fishing, diving or lumberjacking. Passive smoke in the workplace is, on the other hand, an entirely avoidable risk. As a smoker myself, I think the workplace ban on smoking - including bars and restaurants - is reasonable.


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> There are some occupations which are by nature dangerous, say fishing, diving or lumberjacking. Passive smoke in the workplace is, on the other hand, an entirely avoidable risk. As a smoker myself, I think the workplace ban on smoking - including bars and restaurants - is reasonable.



Well, lest you think it's just about protecting people from the dangers of passive smoking, here's a look at what to expect over the next few years.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172230


----------

