Nanny state - agree/disagree

S

sinbadsailor

Registered User
Messages
240
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?
 
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
  • ...
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Are they? Tell us more...
It's all just a bit unnerving, and unnecessary in my opinion
Click to expand...
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.
 
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....
 
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
Click to expand...
What unnecessary restrictions are there on driving in your opinion?
alcohol consumption etc, smoking etc?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What pre-emptive stuff?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ClubMan said:
Do you think that there should be no taxation in these or any circumstances?
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
room305 said:
I do think there is a general trend towards state interference in how we live our lives.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
room305 said:
I can understand the argument against smoking on aeroplanes and in hospitals
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Would that not be in breach of equality legislation? :D
 
Why don't Governments just ban the sale of all tobacco products?

Oh yes, they make lots of money from taxing them.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Ash's proposal for a ban on smoking in one's own private car when one is alone comes to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top