Showing posts with label Nannyism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nannyism. Show all posts
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Important note for well meaning people on both the left and the right:
People, please listen to me...
Just because something is "good" or "bad"... or even "really very good and everyone should do it" or "really very bad and no-one should do it"...
DOES NOT MEAN...
...That you then need to get the government to make laws either mandating it, or banning it.
REALLY, IT DOESN'T.
In fact, you should specifically NOT do that.
That is all.
Just because something is "good" or "bad"... or even "really very good and everyone should do it" or "really very bad and no-one should do it"...
DOES NOT MEAN...
...That you then need to get the government to make laws either mandating it, or banning it.
REALLY, IT DOESN'T.
In fact, you should specifically NOT do that.
That is all.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Yo Bloomie! Hands Off My Boobies!
What is it with all of you nanny-staters trying to molest us? It's not bad enough that last time I flew through an airport I got frisked because the newbie TSA agent didn't know what an underwire looked like (thank you nice TSA lady doing the feeling-up for promising to teach him better). Now you've decided that lactating boobies are also under your obvious domain?
I've intentionally dropped myself out of watching and commenting on this nanny-state bullshit while I deal with bigger matters (*cough* husband with cancer *cough*) but if you bring your stupid-ass, freedom-reducing, gloves-of-blue laws near my boobies I'm going to have to rip you a new one.
You've gone from nanny-staters to state sponsored molesters. Shoulda known that's where you were headed all along.
Mel
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.What the hell happened to "my body, my choice".
Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mayor_knows_breast_WqU1iYRQvwbEkDuvn0vb1H#ixzz227ozu4g6
I've intentionally dropped myself out of watching and commenting on this nanny-state bullshit while I deal with bigger matters (*cough* husband with cancer *cough*) but if you bring your stupid-ass, freedom-reducing, gloves-of-blue laws near my boobies I'm going to have to rip you a new one.
You've gone from nanny-staters to state sponsored molesters. Shoulda known that's where you were headed all along.
Mel
Sunday, August 22, 2010
County Officials Protecting You
From the farmer with the fruit stand. Long story short, farmers in Ada County Idaho were selling produce and goods not from their own farms at their farmstands. They ran amiss of county regulations banning selling produce from other farms, and the county wanted them to comply. So they allowed themselves to be annexed by the town of Kuna, which had no problem with such free enterprise. But that's not what got my attention.
So buying local products from a local farmer who knows the other producers is somehow inherently less safe than going to the grocery store where my produce got flown in from South America?
What's worse is I actually think these people might actually believe their own bullshit, and that farmers are somehow out to poison their friends and neighbors.
Mel
Faced with an increased demand for more local products, Rice wanted to know, "Why can't they change the rules?"
"These requirements are all established with the intent to protect the safety of the public" said county spokeswoman Jessica Donald. "Beyond that, the county and development services staff have always been open to working with impacted groups to explore ways the code can be modified or enhanced to help provide for productive and safe environments."Wow that's some impressive weasel-wording.
So buying local products from a local farmer who knows the other producers is somehow inherently less safe than going to the grocery store where my produce got flown in from South America?
What's worse is I actually think these people might actually believe their own bullshit, and that farmers are somehow out to poison their friends and neighbors.
Mel
Monday, December 28, 2009
Just because people make bad choices...
...Doesn't mean they shouldn't have any choice at all. The first freedom is the freedom to fail...
And when it comes to choosing our leaders in this country... whoooo boy have we failed big time, for a long time.
So Tam, being an Ovarian American, got a bit tweaked at a comment over at Travis Corcorans site t'other day:
The other part of her comment was that she (nor anyone) shouldn't be denied the right to vote (which is not, in fact, a right; but a privilege as a member of society. It can be granted by society, taken away by society, and does not exist in any context without society, therefore is not a right.) because of the choices some might make.
And in that, I'm entirely with her.
But we really do need to look at why women, in the significant majority, vote for the nanny state; and on the larger scale in general, why people who vote for nannyism do so.
The three major events or major societal changes in 20th century that did more to DIRECTLY advance the nanny government than all other events combined were:
1. World War 1
2. Womens suffrage
3. Massive expansion of university education
I note "directly" above, because indirectly the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax, and direct election of senators) may have had an even greater effect; and enabled and encouraged such nannyism... in fact the current nannystate would be impossible without them... but were not direct contributors.
I've talked about point 1 before (along with about a hundred scholarly books, phd. dissertations etc...). By depriving most of Europe of a full generation of its healthiest, most aggressive, and most ambitious men; an environment was created that was dominated by the risk averse, and those who were hurting and suffering... and the entirety of Europe has never really recovered. Basically, the '14-'18 war took the guts out of the continent, and they haven't come back, (bar a minor resurgence for the second great war... and it sadly was a minor resurgence. Just look at England).
Everyone and their uncle has looked at point 3.
Point two though... it's one of those third rail topics. You can't talk about it publicly or you risk being eviscerated by... well by Tam for example, never mind the lefties.
So first things first. Point two is true, by all available statistics. Historically speaking, women vote for more nannyism at about 2/3 to 1/3.
HOWEVER, just because item two is true (and some rather exhaustive demographic studies have been done showing that it is) doesn't mean women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
American blacks and hispanics are more likely to vote for leftists idiocy too (over 80% to 20% for blacks, hispanics are highly variable), that doesn't mean they should be barred from voting either.
The first freedom is the freedom to fail. That includes the freedom to make bad choices; even if those bad choices effect other members of society (this is where the anarchists, Spoonerists, and Rothbardites usually jump up and down and start yelling).
The thing is this: It's not that women, blacks, or hispanics are inherently more socialist than white males; or are less capable of making good political judgments. It's that they perceive (I think, in general, wrongly) that their interest is better served with leftist policies.
In general, over the long term, and free of interference or distortion; people will vote their perceived interests.
The "more vulnerable" of society (which up until recently included the majority of women, blacks, and hispanics) will almost always vote for more "safety" than more freedom; because as I said above, the first freedom is freedom to fail, and they have historically been more likely to suffer under the negative consequences of failure, and therefore perceive the risk/reward metric differently than white males have historically.
Also, both the most wealthy, and most educated members of society (who believe either that the negatives impacts of leftism wont effect them greatly; or that they can benefit more from the "system" if more government control is in place, at the expense of the slightly less educated risk taking capitalists that would otherwise dominate), and the poorest and least educated members of society (who generally believe that they will not be able to succeed to a greater degree than the government would provide largess), generally, vote for more protectionism, socialism, leftism etc...
This is true even in rural "white" "bible belt" America, where protectionism, unions, government works projects and the like are seen as good business economically; even while voting for socially conservative policies and politicians.
Also, this split is by no means stable. As I said, people will tend to vote their perceived interests. Men will vote left and women will vote right, if the positions floated match their perceived interest. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected by landslide four times. Reagan was elected by landslide twice.
The problem then is not that women, minorities, and the poor vote left, or vote for socialism necessarily.
The problem is that they perceive (generally incorrectly) that their interests, and at least to some extent the interests of society, are better served by leftism.
So the task for us, is making the large majority of the people understand that leftism, even in the soft and limited forms of it like public works projects, job protection policies, tarrifs etc... is not in their interest, or the interest of society as a whole.
That's a rather difficult task; because for someone who is naturally risk averse, capitalism (and specifically libertarian free market based capitalism) seems very risky... Heck, it IS very risky, that's the point. You take risks, you fail, and you have the freedom to get back up and take more risks and succeed (or fail again).
Many people out there would happily vote for a "guaranteed" living, even if it was less than half what they could be making without a "guarantee", and even if you could prove to them the "guarantee" was really false. It's just the way they're wired, and no amount of facts or logical arguments are going to convince them.
Many others are willing to accept a bit of risk, but they want a great big "safety net" underneath them for when they fall.
These people, even if they are shown it isn't really true... they WANT it to be true bad enough, that they are willing to try and force that vision on the rest of us.
Those people (and by conventional estimate they make up about 40% of the population) are ALWAYS going to vote for the "safety and security" lie. They are going to vote for the nanny no matter what.
On the other hand, there are about 40% of the population who are always going to vote for the riskier path, that they can reap more reward from.
Even in Reagans 49 state landslide vs. Mondale, he only got 58.8% of the popular vote.
Nixon crushed Mcgovern 49 to 1 as well, and it was still a 60%/40% split.
Even in Roosevelts "New Deal" landslide against Hoover, he only got 57.4% of the popular vote (in '36 against Alf Landon, 60.8%, the biggest landslide since the civil war. In '40 against Wendell Wilkie, 54.7%. In '44 against Thomas Dewey, 53.4%).
The 40% on either side is a pretty stable number; barring major events in society that temporarily distort it, like wars and disasters.... And even then, in the last 110 years, in every national election, the left has never had less than 35%, and neither has the right... And neither have had more than 60.8% either.
The fact is, some people will believe what they want to believe, or what they're afraid to believe, over the truth; no matter how clear the truth is made to them.
It's the remaining 20% that we need to get to, and teach them that it is ALWAYS a lie.
In a society where the government does not artificially force the private economy into failure, the government cannot possibly do better for you than you can do for yourself. Giving the government more power, and more control, is NEVER in your best interest, or in the interest of society.
Saying that "womens suffrage caused socialism" (which isn't what Travis said exactly, but it's certainly what a lot of people would hear from what he said) isn't exactly helpful in that.
And when it comes to choosing our leaders in this country... whoooo boy have we failed big time, for a long time.
So Tam, being an Ovarian American, got a bit tweaked at a comment over at Travis Corcorans site t'other day:
"I think that female suffrage has been an unremitted disaster – all of the socialism that we’ve experienced in the US has happened since, and because women have been allowed to vote."Excluding snark, Tams comment boiled down to "correlation does not equal causation"; which normally I am one of the first to trumpet... but in this case there is a causative link... Or at least most major studies of voting demographics seem to show one.
The other part of her comment was that she (nor anyone) shouldn't be denied the right to vote (which is not, in fact, a right; but a privilege as a member of society. It can be granted by society, taken away by society, and does not exist in any context without society, therefore is not a right.) because of the choices some might make.
And in that, I'm entirely with her.
But we really do need to look at why women, in the significant majority, vote for the nanny state; and on the larger scale in general, why people who vote for nannyism do so.
The three major events or major societal changes in 20th century that did more to DIRECTLY advance the nanny government than all other events combined were:
1. World War 1
2. Womens suffrage
3. Massive expansion of university education
I note "directly" above, because indirectly the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax, and direct election of senators) may have had an even greater effect; and enabled and encouraged such nannyism... in fact the current nannystate would be impossible without them... but were not direct contributors.
I've talked about point 1 before (along with about a hundred scholarly books, phd. dissertations etc...). By depriving most of Europe of a full generation of its healthiest, most aggressive, and most ambitious men; an environment was created that was dominated by the risk averse, and those who were hurting and suffering... and the entirety of Europe has never really recovered. Basically, the '14-'18 war took the guts out of the continent, and they haven't come back, (bar a minor resurgence for the second great war... and it sadly was a minor resurgence. Just look at England).
Everyone and their uncle has looked at point 3.
Point two though... it's one of those third rail topics. You can't talk about it publicly or you risk being eviscerated by... well by Tam for example, never mind the lefties.
So first things first. Point two is true, by all available statistics. Historically speaking, women vote for more nannyism at about 2/3 to 1/3.
HOWEVER, just because item two is true (and some rather exhaustive demographic studies have been done showing that it is) doesn't mean women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
American blacks and hispanics are more likely to vote for leftists idiocy too (over 80% to 20% for blacks, hispanics are highly variable), that doesn't mean they should be barred from voting either.
The first freedom is the freedom to fail. That includes the freedom to make bad choices; even if those bad choices effect other members of society (this is where the anarchists, Spoonerists, and Rothbardites usually jump up and down and start yelling).
The thing is this: It's not that women, blacks, or hispanics are inherently more socialist than white males; or are less capable of making good political judgments. It's that they perceive (I think, in general, wrongly) that their interest is better served with leftist policies.
In general, over the long term, and free of interference or distortion; people will vote their perceived interests.
The "more vulnerable" of society (which up until recently included the majority of women, blacks, and hispanics) will almost always vote for more "safety" than more freedom; because as I said above, the first freedom is freedom to fail, and they have historically been more likely to suffer under the negative consequences of failure, and therefore perceive the risk/reward metric differently than white males have historically.
Also, both the most wealthy, and most educated members of society (who believe either that the negatives impacts of leftism wont effect them greatly; or that they can benefit more from the "system" if more government control is in place, at the expense of the slightly less educated risk taking capitalists that would otherwise dominate), and the poorest and least educated members of society (who generally believe that they will not be able to succeed to a greater degree than the government would provide largess), generally, vote for more protectionism, socialism, leftism etc...
This is true even in rural "white" "bible belt" America, where protectionism, unions, government works projects and the like are seen as good business economically; even while voting for socially conservative policies and politicians.
Also, this split is by no means stable. As I said, people will tend to vote their perceived interests. Men will vote left and women will vote right, if the positions floated match their perceived interest. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected by landslide four times. Reagan was elected by landslide twice.
The problem then is not that women, minorities, and the poor vote left, or vote for socialism necessarily.
The problem is that they perceive (generally incorrectly) that their interests, and at least to some extent the interests of society, are better served by leftism.
So the task for us, is making the large majority of the people understand that leftism, even in the soft and limited forms of it like public works projects, job protection policies, tarrifs etc... is not in their interest, or the interest of society as a whole.
That's a rather difficult task; because for someone who is naturally risk averse, capitalism (and specifically libertarian free market based capitalism) seems very risky... Heck, it IS very risky, that's the point. You take risks, you fail, and you have the freedom to get back up and take more risks and succeed (or fail again).
Many people out there would happily vote for a "guaranteed" living, even if it was less than half what they could be making without a "guarantee", and even if you could prove to them the "guarantee" was really false. It's just the way they're wired, and no amount of facts or logical arguments are going to convince them.
Many others are willing to accept a bit of risk, but they want a great big "safety net" underneath them for when they fall.
These people, even if they are shown it isn't really true... they WANT it to be true bad enough, that they are willing to try and force that vision on the rest of us.
Those people (and by conventional estimate they make up about 40% of the population) are ALWAYS going to vote for the "safety and security" lie. They are going to vote for the nanny no matter what.
On the other hand, there are about 40% of the population who are always going to vote for the riskier path, that they can reap more reward from.
Even in Reagans 49 state landslide vs. Mondale, he only got 58.8% of the popular vote.
Nixon crushed Mcgovern 49 to 1 as well, and it was still a 60%/40% split.
Even in Roosevelts "New Deal" landslide against Hoover, he only got 57.4% of the popular vote (in '36 against Alf Landon, 60.8%, the biggest landslide since the civil war. In '40 against Wendell Wilkie, 54.7%. In '44 against Thomas Dewey, 53.4%).
The 40% on either side is a pretty stable number; barring major events in society that temporarily distort it, like wars and disasters.... And even then, in the last 110 years, in every national election, the left has never had less than 35%, and neither has the right... And neither have had more than 60.8% either.
The fact is, some people will believe what they want to believe, or what they're afraid to believe, over the truth; no matter how clear the truth is made to them.
It's the remaining 20% that we need to get to, and teach them that it is ALWAYS a lie.
In a society where the government does not artificially force the private economy into failure, the government cannot possibly do better for you than you can do for yourself. Giving the government more power, and more control, is NEVER in your best interest, or in the interest of society.
Saying that "womens suffrage caused socialism" (which isn't what Travis said exactly, but it's certainly what a lot of people would hear from what he said) isn't exactly helpful in that.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The most dangerous phrase strikes again
Seriously, congresscritters are morons. There can be no other explanation.
Sadly, this is not the most idiotic, ridiculous, laughable, or embarrassingly stupid law ever proposed; but it's close:
What if my phone breaks and the tone doesn't work?
What about digital cameras; they're quite small and easy to conceal?
What about deliberately hidden cameras, or novelty cameras that look like other things, will those be illegal as well?
Yet another example of one idiot... or given the subject matter probably thousands of idiots... saying to another idiot (one with power over us, god help us) "There ought to be a law"; the most dangerous phrase in the English language.
Sadly, this is not the most idiotic, ridiculous, laughable, or embarrassingly stupid law ever proposed; but it's close:
" New Law Will Require Camera Phones to 'Click'So, if my finger happens to be blocking the speaker, what then?
Author: Michael Horton
A new bill is being introduced called, Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, which would require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera's phone. It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone.
While its a good gesture, I do not believe having such a law would deter criminals from hacking their camera phones to take pictures in inappropriate ways. Also, the real criminals would not even use a camera phone but would probably use other devices such as a hidden camera. Regardless, at least with the bill signed into law it would allow prosecution and jail time for individuals that get caught with a camera phone that does not make the noise.
One question does remain, what if you have a camera phone that doesn't make the noise at all or is suppressible? Would older phones still be covered under this new law?"
What if my phone breaks and the tone doesn't work?
What about digital cameras; they're quite small and easy to conceal?
What about deliberately hidden cameras, or novelty cameras that look like other things, will those be illegal as well?
Yet another example of one idiot... or given the subject matter probably thousands of idiots... saying to another idiot (one with power over us, god help us) "There ought to be a law"; the most dangerous phrase in the English language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)