Nanny State
 

I've been reading this book called Nanny State.
If anyone has read it, what do you think?
Also not to just focus on the book, what do you all think about this type of thing?
What do you think about laws that are put in place to help "protect" people from themselves and others when really they are just overbearing and not needed?

No one should be protected from themselves.

Generally, if one WANTS to self destruct, then let them.

I mother fucking hate... nanny state ideals.

I don't like the idea of anyone telling me what I can and Can't do.

Another Nanny State ideal is to completely disarm anyone that isn't a Police Officer or in the Military.

Then of course you can forget about freedom of speech and other joy's of life.


I like the laws the way they are,in some cases,if the U.S. would leagalize weed it would be even better. (I do not advocate using firearms and smoke together,to much could go wrong)

That and I hate J.B.T.'s (Jack Booted Thugs) in general.

And I really hate J.B.T Mother Fuckers like these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC...eature=related


And seen here.


I know these video's are about three years old but it still makes me mad thinking about this going down again,anywhere.

And no offense to those in the UK but. Another example of a Nanny State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQ...ture=rec-fresh

Deadmanwalking, a double post is considered bad, but acceptable given the 5 minute time limit in editing. A triple post is pushing it, but we can deal. But a quadruple post?

I can agree with laws when they protect both yourself and others. Take Drunk Driving laws for example: They protect yourself from driving and crashing, and they protect others from you becoming a 100km/ph ball of steel. So the dual purpose keeps it good in my book.

But when you're prohibiting alcohol in someone's home, then I have a problem.

I have to take an exception to the idea that other rights depend on the right to bear arms, that is some extremely flimsy slippery-slope logic. Japan and western Europe don't seem to be suffering to badly with heavy restrictions on firearms.

You know how the law of gravity is essentially unbroken? And well... the laws of light and matter?

If drunk driving laws were really laws, they wouldn't be broken. :-/

Then no law in the American legal system is a law. Shall we call them rules then?

I'm confused as to what your point is.

But see, in the book it mentioned that the BAC used to be over .08
Then it was downed to .08
Why?
There were even instances where people who had lower than .08 who still got arrested.
What the hell is up with that?
Because they don't want people to drink. PERIOD.

They don't want people to drink and drive. I think that's the operative word.

You can be hammered, and as long as you don't wander on to private property, you can walk wherever you want. To my knowledge, there's nothing illegal about walking and being drunk, or being drunk in a bar/at your home, and you can't be arrested for it.

It's when you operate a motor vehicle that it becomes a problem.

More of just a rhetorical statement really that laws FAIL us.

Good point. However, I don't think laws can/should try to prevent things or make them physically impossible, like the laws of nature do. I think they should provide a means for dealing with events when they happen.

Using the Drunk Driving example, I don't think the law will ever stop someone from getting in the car and driving. However, if they are caught it will provide a means for stopping them from doing it again, or providing penalties when they do crash and kill someone.

Actually, there were times that police went into bars LOOKING for people that were drunk and to arrest them.

I've never seen/heard of that happening.

Then again, it may also be in part to where I live, in which case I'd disagree with the police and law.

If you'd like, i could find it in the book for you.

It's alright. I'll take your word.

However, this is a case where I don't agree with what the police were doing, and to my knowledge that's not the law where I live (Either in the States or in Canada). So I'm not really arguing anything.

Yeah.

I feel as though since i've been reading the book, that i should be doing something about it.
Things like this really bother me. Even enough to make me want to move to another country or something.

Well... in the name of safety, you could always make that reaction harsher.

Get caught with a DUI, license revoked for a decade. I mean c'mon. If we're going to use fear as a means of keeping people in line and behaving, let's make it worth it. o_0

On the other hand, we could not have any recourse for it at all. So therefore there would be no punishment for driving drunk, and no additional punishment for killing someone in a drunk driving incident.

I think there needs to be a reasonable course of action taken, and I do not believe ten years or no penalty is reasonable.

What is Nany State? It doesn't sound good...

Check out some of the links I posted .

Those show the beginning of a Nanny State. (They are also about Gun Control,the Nanny State's first stab at "Protecting" us from ourselves)

Well, you could start finding out by reading the book Nanny State by David Harsanyi

Bleh. I guess I would consider the UK a nanny state.

But not because of the firearm laws.