Thread: The Nanny State

Definitions of:

nanny state
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a government that makes decisions for people that they might otherwise make for themselves, esp those relating to private and personal behaviour

nanny state - definition of nanny state by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

a government that tries to protect its people and control their lives in a way that stops them being independent

Definition of nanny state, Macmillan Dictionary: Free English Dictionary Online with Thesaurus

nanny state government institutions and practices of the Welfare State collectively, perceived as overprotective, interfering, or excessively authoritarian, a term apparently coined by the Conservative politician Iain Macleod (1913–70) in the Spectator in 1965.

nanny state ? Dictionary definition of nanny state | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary


We hear/see this term bandied about left, right and centre whenever the government, any government, makes decisions or policies that a certain demographic disagres with . . . lately we've seen it used extensively for the US' healthcare policy and, on the other end of the spectrum, L. Hamilton having his car impounded because he did some doughnuts on a public street.

The question is where does a government star to become a nanny state or is a government inherently a nanny state as it is charged with ensuring a set of governance for its population.

What rate tax should be seen as deciding a nanny state? 20%? 30% 40% 50%?

Should a government ensure that its population is medically covered and its citizens need not panic financially when they require medical aid?

Police. How far should a government have jurisdiction over police? After all, police salaries are paid for by taxes.

Fire Department . . . same as above. Should it be privatised so that it is a user-pays system? You get burgled and you can decide for yourself if you want the police involved. Your house catches fire, your decision to call the fire department and pay accordingly.

The armed forces. The government rules by majority vote (usually the case in the west) and has the mandate of the people to do as they see fit . . . start wars, stay out of them, pretend to stay out or get in . . .

Roads, bridges . . . general infrastructure. We expect our chosen leaders to provide us with a sound infrastructure . . . or do we? Is this already the outcome of a nanny state?

The examples are endless.

We expect our elected officials to provide us with what we deem to be the necessary and basic rights and platforms to live our life . . . but the level is always disputed.

Regulate the stock market or let it run self-regulated?

Food standards?

Research on non-profitable or long-term projects which would not be done by private enterprise

Have a government organisation test and vet all medicines to ensure they are safe or let the pharmaceutical companies take care of that themselves?

The same goes for the auto industry . . . safety guidelines or let the market decide if they want cheap and unsafe cars? Allow manufacturers to have high-safety or low-safety cars? No guidelines from the state?

Endless examples of how government is part and parcel of our every day life, from the time we wake up to when we are fast asleep, some functions of government are at work . . . but are they at work in our favour?

Functions of government:

Government has three purposes:
Provide for the common defense (against external threats)
Provide for the enforcement of contracts
Coin money to support trade

WikiAnswers - What is the function of government

The functions of government
In all modern states, governmental functions have greatly expanded with the emergence of government as an active force in guiding social and economic development. In countries with a command economy, government has a vast range of responsibilities for many types of economic behaviour. In those countries favouring social democracy, the government owns or regulates business and industry

political system :: The functions of government -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

What exactly do we expect from our governments?

So much effort put into this . . . and no responses yet . . . sigh

If it passes the "Quack Test", it's a Nanny State...

There ya go.

What exactly do we expect from our governments?


Fuck all, they just take.

Probably the main reason I don't live in Australia any more...

Government wants more CCTV cameras in homes

Latest Home Office initiative wants to watch 20,000 problem families 24/7

By Adam Hartley
August 3rd 2009 | Tell us what you think [ 4 comments ]

One nation under CCTV
The UK Government's Children's Secretary Ed Balls has announced a controversial new CCTV monitoring scheme, in which thousands of problem families are to be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Balls claims that the £400 million "sin bin" scheme will put up to 20,000 problem families under 24-hour surveillance in their own homes, to ensure children go to bed and school on time and eat proper meals.
"Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction," reads a report in the Sunday Express.


Read more: Government wants more CCTV cameras in homes | News | TechRadar UK

goes hand in hand with those other goverment coined phrases,
political correctness and health and safety,
all under the heading "nanny state"
its all about control, how long before the brits are shopping each other to the politicoes for some infringment in one of the above.

Originally Posted by Bung

Probably the main reason I don't live in Australia any more...

Cheers Bung , its Ruddy awfull there and has been since I was booked in 1983 by a copper hiding on an overpass on the newcastle / sydney expressway.
We have been progressively moving towards a police state since then.
Glad to be out of there , but would still be nice to live in the NT and not see any bastard but flies and boongas for
weeks at a time.
Asia has its appeal in that if u fuck up here , you fuck up big time and your on your own.
I kinda like it that way.

Originally Posted by r1 pet

how long before the brits are shopping each other to the politicoes for some infringment in one of the above.

It's happening NOW and has been for some time.

health and safety,

Frequently slagged off for spoiling the fun but the truth is the people living in the nanny state need nanny to look after them and wipe their bum before they go out to play. The reason many things get cancelled "for health and safety" reasons is that organisers of any event these days have to do a hell of a lot of risk analysis before they're even considered for insurance. They have to carry insurance in case little Ffyona falls over a loose paving slab and grazes her little knee forcing daddy to phone his solicitor and start a massive damages claim.

We Brits used to take the piss out of the Americans and their nonsense litigation like suing because the coffee she spilt was hot but, in truth, we're just as bad these days. Nobody takes responsibility for themselves and nobody accepts accidents. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of somebody else and that person must pay up.

Just to make matter worse the government is considering making it illegal for people to smoke in their own cars. The reason? Well other people also travel in those cars and some of them are children. So rather than ask parents, who on the whole are fairly open to suggestions regarding the health of their little ones, to desist they're planning to use the police to crush the remaining life out of yet more innocent people. Street crime is rampant but by God you'd better not light up a ciggie in your own car.

OKAY SIR, KEEP YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND STEP AWAY FROM THE SOAP BOX REAL SLOWLY.

Rant mode off, I know when I'm .

Originally Posted by Belepheron

Nobody takes responsibility for themselves and nobody accepts accidents. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of somebody else and that person must pay up.

Green on the way. My point(s) exactly...

Originally Posted by Belepheron
Nobody takes responsibility for themselves and nobody accepts accidents. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of somebody else.



In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $ 2.9 million U.S. in damages to 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself. This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award -for the most frivolous lawsuit in the U.S.
The cases listed below are clear candidates....................

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little prick was Ms. Robertson's son.

2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal the neighbor's hubcaps.

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Mr. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in it's owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

7. And just so you know that cooler heads do occasionally prevail: Kenmore Inc., the makers of Dorothy Johnson's microwave, were found not liable for the death of Mrs. Johnson's poodle after she gave it a bath and attempted to dry it by putting the poor creature in her microwave for, "just a few minutes, on low." The case was quickly dismissed.

you must have forgotten the guy who bought a mobile home in the states,
put it into cruise control then got out of his seat to make coffee,
they didnt tell him it was not auto pilot,
fell off the road of course,he got paid out as well.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Belepheron

Nobody takes responsibility for themselves and nobody accepts accidents. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of somebody else and that person must pay up.

Green on the way. My point(s) exactly...

There is a few families of miners who might take issue with that.

Originally Posted by Norton

Bottom line, a government that meets my desires without me noticing.

Same . . . yet when we want to do something, like build a house or shed in the backyard, there are council regs to limit us.

Is that a bad thing?

I don't believe so, providing it is kept in limits . . . which opens up a Pandora's Box of course.

Said shed . . . what if your neighbour decides to make it three stories high and very rickety and it is four feet away from your child's bedroom or play area? One can complain to the neighbour but he doesn't need to change anything because there is no law against it.

Point is that we need to have regulations to keep us 'safe' from one another . . . let's face it, most people wouldn't have a clue how to do that and are basically egoists.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Everybody has free will. If those miners were aware of the dangers and also aware of safety risks, they were not hearded into that mine but went of their volution. OK, that's the only employer about - move. Find a mine to work in that follows the safety rules a little more strictly.

But you see, BM, this is where the whole system we have now would collapse. If there is no guideline on health and safety, no-one would have safe mines as it would decrease competitiveness . . . all mines would be unsafe.

You worked (work) in the oil industry if I am not mistaken. Would you really accept unsafe and unregulated conditions on rigs? No safety regs to follow, therefore many accidents and no need by the employer to install any because he can just line up more workers who are desperate.

It's called rolling back the clock in terms of social development

Originally Posted by panama hat

You worked (work) in the oil industry if I am not mistaken. Would you really accept unsafe and unregulated conditions on rigs? No safety regs to follow, therefore many accidents and no need by the employer to install any because he can just line up more workers who are desperate.

Yes, I'm still employed in the Oil bidness where we do have a good set of safety regulations but they are employer-dictated only. There is no one overall Safety board such as OSHA in the states. We follow strict rules regarding working at heights, hot work such as welding and cutting etc but in the end, it's common sense.

What is a classic example of a failed Nanny State is right before our eyes - Greece. Promising too much and not delivering. Another Nanny State which is doing OK due to Big Oil - Norway. Ever been there? Minimum wage is like $35.00 per hour of which the government takes almost half and what do those decendents of Eric The Red get? Cost of living out of control where a Big Mac will set you back $12.30 or so. Norway...miserable climate and too much government control. These Nanny States work resonably well in small places like NZ, Norway, Denmark etc but a country the size of America? Fugetaboutit...

'Nanny state' has become as degraded a term in recent US political nomenclature as 'liberal'. The most degraded term of all, imho, is the term 'conservative', because those throwing this term around are anything but. Real conservatives stuck in the current US political circus are remaining studiously quiet. I feel for them.

The recent brand of self styled US political Conservatives [I use the big 'C' deliberately] describe such nations as the UK, Oz and NZ as 'Socialist'. So another degraded term.

Need I say more?

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Originally Posted by sabang

'Nanny state' has become as degraded a term in recent US political nomenclature as 'liberal'. The most degraded term of all, imho, is the term 'conservative', because those throwing this term around are anything but. Real conservatives stuck in the current US political circus are remaining studiously quiet. I feel for them.

The recent brand of self styled US political Conservatives [I use the big 'C' deliberately] describe such nations as the UK, Oz and NZ as 'Socialist'. So another degraded term.

Need I say more?

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Yes, but what about Greece?

Over the years, the socialist governments of the UK could not resist the urge to interfere in individuals lives.
The result is the nanny state we have today. Family and social cohesion undermined by a plethora of regulation which allows a poor working class, 16 year old girl to get herself with child, and then support her and child for the forseeable future.
It's a train wreck of poor, ill educated, rootless individuals set up to milk the system.
It has created an underclass with no morals, but with a handle on entitlements which are undeserved.
As noted previously, law enforcement is down to that which can be served easily on the few remaining, law abiding citizens.

Nanny, naneeee, where are my free tranquilisers?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yes, but what about Greece?

A basket case. The problem with the Eurozone is that it unites economically strong and fiscally responsible countries such as Germany in a common currency and monetary policy with the likes of Greece and Spain. Not surprised the poo hit the fan.

Not real sure it would qualify as a 'nanny state' though.

Originally Posted by chassamui

It has created an underclass with no morals, but with a handle on entitlements which are undeserved.

Some aspects of the UK social welfare system indeed make me cringe. Like when you get some bint who's sole function in life is to spit out babies of varied and uncertain fatherhood, being put up on the government teat in the sort of house where the rent exceeds what a normal working family person even earns! Thats just obscene. There are similar stories in Oz, France and so on- even the USA.

Basically, some people are in a situation where it is to their financial benefit to scrounge off the state rather than work. In several cases this is deliberate, and surely that is a weakness of the system. Personally, for this sort of person I think there should be institutions, somewhat based on the old Victorian workhouses and debtors prisons (where you were free to go out and work to pay off your debts)- as opposed to, say, a classic Regency terrace house in Notting Hill being paid for by the taxpayer.

While you will always have an element that deliberately milks the system, statistically this is a variable- namely the more decent employment opportunities provided by the economy, the lower the percentage of long term unemployed will be. Obviously economies are cyclical- not much we can do about that- but this is also an argument in favour of a decent minimum wage.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Another Nanny State which is doing OK due to Big Oil - Norway. Ever been there? Minimum wage is like $35.00 per hour of which the government takes almost half and what do those decendents of Eric The Red get? Cost of living out of control where a Big Mac will set you back $12.30 or so

Surely you're not saying that the high cost of a hamburger qualifies as an indoicator of a nanny state?

Originally Posted by sabang

spit out babies of varied and uncertain fatherhood,

This is the thing, though. As Sabang pointed out, the term 'Nanny State' really has no definition . . . some see even the slightest influence of government organs as being those of a nanny state, especially if it doesn't benefit them . . .

As far as I can tell, the only form of government that is in no way a 'nanny state' would be anarchy as any government's role is to rule.