homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The nanny state is better than zombie capitalism (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The nanny state is better than zombie capitalism
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Eh? If I've struggled in the past it's been because of my own mistakes, bad decisions and failures...

It seems, then, that the state hasn't been a much of a nanny in your case.

I'd say that the US and the UK are a long way from anything that can be described as a nanny state. Far better examples would be most Arab countries and, of course, super-nanny, Singapore, which criminalizes a wide range of personal behavior including such trivial conduct as failing to flush toilets after use and the sale of chewing gum.

If Singapore represents the slippery slide* of regulation, the slippery slide* of non-regulation is Somalia. Much as I would dislike it, between the two extremes, I'd vastly prefer living in the former.

Moreover, by means of the ballot box, it is quite possible for the people of US and the UK to strip the so-called nanny state of those powers to which the majority object.

*Since you use slippery slide arguments (a logial fallacy)to make your points, I think it's fair that such arguments be used in the other direction.

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For "slippery slide", read "slippery slope".

Note to self: No posting past regular sleeping time.

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HairyBiker:
quote:
Then stop behaving like a child. Show a bit of consideration for others by keeping your fags at home, and eat a grown-up balanced diet.
So this is the mutton-head response of the nanny.

The assumption being, of course, that because I'm interested in freedom, it can only be because I smoke, or gorge on turkey-twizzlers. Which is total bollocks, but an insight into the mindset.

And as long as you keep assuming that people who claim to be adults are not, of course you won't want to dismantle the controls.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Marvin, one of the reasons your point of view doesn't work is symmetry. It's simply better, cheaper, and more efficient to impose one of two choices rather than the other.

Take the provision of clean water, for instance. You could say that providing only fit-to-drink water is a symptom of the "nanny state". The state should just pump any old grot into your home and if you really want the clean stuff, you have to clean it up yourself. The problem here is, for every home to provide its own water clean-up technology would be ridiculously difficult and monstrously expensive. So by a sort of social consent, we get the state to clean up our water for us before it gets to our homes. The state imposes the choice.

This, of course, doesn't preclude your ultimate freedom. If you really want to drink water with turds in it, you can supply those yourself. It'll be much cheaper and easier for you to dirty up clean water than it would be for you to clean up dirty water. NHS staff will even pump out your stomach for you afterwards, free of charge. But NHS staff are only human, and they might laugh really hard while they're doing it.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Take the provision of clean water, for instance. You could say that providing only fit-to-drink water is a symptom of the "nanny state".

If I wanted to be particularly stuipid I could, yes. But does anyone seriously think ensuring the availability of drinkable water is on a par with overregulation of individual decision making?

If the State were to say "we're providing clean, drinkable water, so that's all we'll ever let you drink", that would be Nanny at work. The State saying "we're providing clean, drinkable water, but if you'd rather drink nothing but cola all day that's your call" isn't.

I'm not against health standards, education, or any amount of information being given so that we can make educated decisions. What I'm against is saying that the existence of those standards means we should be banned from ever choosing something that doesn't meet them. The government can tell me that muesli is the healthiest breakfast until it's blue in the face, but if I'd rather have a greasy, heart-attack-on-a-plate fry-up then why the hell shouldn't I?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can we charge you lots extra for looking after you when you have your greasy heart attack?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we charge you lots extra for looking after you when you have your greasy heart attack?

Are you going to charge everybody else who engages in "unneccessary" activities that are likely to increase their risk of injury or illness more as well? Shall we have a sliding scale of up-front health service costs based on lifestyle, with only those who follow the exact lifestyle dictated by the State getting a truly free service?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436

 - Posted      Profile for aumbry         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

You forgot incest and folk dancing.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

More slippery slope.
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

More slippery slope.
However much the amount of slip allowed on a slope is regulated doesn't matter. A toddler on a wet slide in waterproofs goes at one hell of a lick!

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
More slippery slope.

Yeah, well when we're talking about the State gaining the power to monitor, regulate and control our lives it's a pretty safe bet that the more it gets the more it will take. Governments are evil bastards that won't stop until they've dictated the outcome of every possible decision we can ever make. Not unless they're stopped, anyway - and "this must be stopped" is exactly what I and others are saying.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
More slippery slope.

Yeah, well when we're talking about the State gaining the power to monitor, regulate and control our lives it's a pretty safe bet that the more it gets the more it will take. Governments are evil bastards that won't stop until they've dictated the outcome of every possible decision we can ever make. Not unless they're stopped, anyway - and "this must be stopped" is exactly what I and others are saying.
Nonsense. There is a moderate view, that suggests that there are limits to individual freedoms, and limits to regulation. Balance. The golden mean.

Governments as evil bastards? Smacks of paranoid thinking. In a democracy, the gov't is us. When people feel alienated from this, then the gov'ts have become co-opted by those who would bend things to their way. Those who would do this require more regulation, not less. The primary difference between your view and mine, is that I see gov't as having potentiality for good, and see corporate freedom as essentially non-moral, non-ethical and promoting of inequality. Reasoned regulation of all of it is the key. Not discarding.

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
We are not born with an evolutionary drive to smoke. I've never yet met a person who enjoyed their first attempt at smoking.

Is this just a random observation, or do you mean it as a reply?

Where I live, there is nothing objectionable about an acquired taste just because it is acquired. Rather the contrary, if anything. In a recent interview, the new concertmaster of the Philadelphia Orchestra recalls how he detested practicing the violin as a child. But he doesn't regret it now.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285

 - Posted      Profile for Inger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
We are not born with an evolutionary drive to smoke. I've never yet met a person who enjoyed their first attempt at smoking.

Is this just a random observation, or do you mean it as a reply?

Where I live, there is nothing objectionable about an acquired taste just because it is acquired. Rather the contrary, if anything. In a recent interview, the new concertmaster of the Philadelphia Orchestra recalls how he detested practicing the violin as a child. But he doesn't regret it now.

What I was really responding to was this post of yours:

quote:
For "smoking and cancer" why not just substitute "sex and AIDS"? You'd have a slam dunk case there, too. Think of all the money that would be saved on medical care if people never had non-reproductive sex. Maybe it's only just a matter of time before that shoe will drop, too.
I would no doubt have done better to quote that, as well as this:

quote:
Smoking and sex outside of marriage are both so unnecessary! How can a rational, mature, and economically responsible society possibly discourage one while continuing to allow (and often celebrate) the other?

Nice try wiggling out of the parallels; but as the saying goes, no cigar.

How anyone can see the two as even remotely parallel beats me. I think it's just about the most pointless analogy I've come across in a long while.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not against health standards, education, or any amount of information being given so that we can make educated decisions. What I'm against is saying that the existence of those standards means we should be banned from ever choosing something that doesn't meet them.

That's rather a contradiction. Having a government-issued standard means sub-standard products are banned. Otherwise it's a guideline, not a standard. For example, if the government issues a standard that cholera-infected water is not fit for human consumption, that constitutes a ban on the business of the proud owner of the Cholera Springs™ bottled water company. Coupled with big government anti-fraud laws, this kind of regulation would even make it illegal for him to market his product as "safe for human consumption".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Inger,

I know what you were replying to. But neither you nor anyone else has so far backed up your opinion that the parallel makes no sense with an argument that holds a drop of water.

Until someone does-- Marvin, I, and others can only warn that the relative exemption sexual matters currently enjoy from American governmental stricture is just as fragile as it is unusual. I can put it down only to the fact that today's nanny-staters tend to be secularists who take it as a point of pride not to be driven by the religious considerations of the Salem, Mass. Puritans. But IMHO their mentality is unchanged. The only difference is that instead of scripture, they rationalize their interference with science and economics (real or imagined).

For anyone who wants to use them, there is as much science and economics to marshal against extra-marital sex as there is scripture. The longer the leash we give these people, the more confidently they will eventually take old business up from the table.

[ 04. May 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Alogon ]

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moth

Shipmate
# 2589

 - Posted      Profile for Moth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.

I doubt either drinking or eating fatty foods will be banned either. Taxed possibly, or discouraged, but not banned.

--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.

Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.

I doubt either drinking or eating fatty foods will be banned either. Taxed possibly, or discouraged, but not banned.

The idea that fast food is on the brink of being criminalized is ludicrous. McDonald's and Burger King and other fast food chains still are free to advertise on the airwaves as well as sponsor major athletic and cultural events. The recent regulation some has proposed is that fast food companies should display nutritional information to customers. Asking companies to tell the truth isn't a grievous burden. There are no proposals that I know of to limit or restrict their commercial advertising or their corporate sponsorship. The proposed regulations, far from being a cruel onslaught foisted by a patronizing State, are IMHO relatively mild measures designed to check the power of these fast food giants.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
fast food companies should display nutritional information to customers.

That's fine by me. I'd also have no objection whatsoever to banning the sale of soft drinks and junk food in public schools-- in fact commercial propaganda of all kinds there. In this environment, it's not a question of nanny or no-nanny. The pupils are there. They are required to be there for the purpose of learning. The school acts in loco parentis, and let us hope, with the children's best interest in mind. Exposing them to profiteering (especially in return for a subsidy) is not the act of a benevolent authority.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alogon,


Aside from schools, then, where has the state banned the consumption of non-nutritious food? We are still absolutely free to exist on a diet of the junkiest of junk foods.

Requiring food labels is simply providing the consumer with information upon which choices can be made. As a geriatric with high blood pressure, I find this information not only helpful but potentially life saving.

[ 04. May 2012, 23:39: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, Alogon, I don't understand your point about state interference in sexual matters. Are you referring to nanny statism on the part of right wingers?
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm being a consistent libertarian in this case, questioning whether a distinction between right-wing authoritarians and left-wing authoritarians is even coherent, let alone reliable. And I'd like to send a wake-up call to anyone, especially those who think of themselves as liberal, who favor circumscribing a whole range of X and Y, but enjoy doing Z and assume that the precedent they set will leave them free to enjoy Z indefinitely.

Can you name me a left-wing authoritarian state that doesn't restrict sexual activity considerably more than ours does at present?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
There is a moderate view, that suggests that there are limits to individual freedoms, and limits to regulation. Balance. The golden mean.

The limit to individual freedom should be "don't hurt anyone else". The limit to regulation should be "no more than is necessary to ensure the first thing I just said".

quote:
Governments as evil bastards? Smacks of paranoid thinking.
It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you.

quote:
In a democracy, the gov't is us.
The fuck it is. It's a bunch of self-interested, self-perpetuating, corrupt bastard politicians who'd happily sell each and every one of us down the river were it not for the fact that every four or five years they have to somehow convince us to vote for them. And I have no doubt that each and every one of them would happily remove that whole "voting" thing if they thought they could get away with it.

quote:
When people feel alienated from this, then the gov'ts have become co-opted by those who would bend things to their way.
You mean politicians?

quote:
The primary difference between your view and mine, is that I see gov't as having potentiality for good, and see corporate freedom as essentially non-moral, non-ethical and promoting of inequality. Reasoned regulation of all of it is the key. Not discarding.
I'm not talking about corporate freedom, I'm talking about individual freedom.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we charge you lots extra for looking after you when you have your greasy heart attack?

Are you going to charge everybody else who engages in "unneccessary" activities that are likely to increase their risk of injury or illness more as well? Shall we have a sliding scale of up-front health service costs based on lifestyle, with only those who follow the exact lifestyle dictated by the State getting a truly free service?
Which is precisely what insurance companies do. They look at your risk factors, and charge premiums accordingly.

It's interesting that people seem to accept private companies do this without any difficulty. But I imagine that if the state did it there'd be a total outcry.

But then if the state uses OTHER methods to prevent its costs blowing out, there's an outcry for that as well.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not against health standards, education, or any amount of information being given so that we can make educated decisions. What I'm against is saying that the existence of those standards means we should be banned from ever choosing something that doesn't meet them.

That's rather a contradiction. Having a government-issued standard means sub-standard products are banned.
No, it means they don't get to use the big sticker saying "Up To Government Standards" in their packaging. And people then get to decide to buy it or not accordingly.

The reason it matters that even those products that don't meet government standards should still be available (assuming enough people want to buy them to make them economically viable) is simply that in many areas it's not as simple as "this shit will kill you immediately". When it starts coming down to a matter of opinion as to what's best for us (especially when measured in decades) then we should be free to follow our own opinions rather than those of a bunch of lying bastard politicians.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.

There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.

I doubt either drinking or eating fatty foods will be banned either. Taxed possibly, or discouraged, but not banned.

There's a hell of a lot of myths in some quarters around the whole area of regulation. Most of the regulation I ever see (and I literally write things called regulations) is not about banning things. Frankly, banning things is a heck of a lot simpler and quicker to write, but we don't do it much. Regulation is usually about ensuring quality, transparency and information.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And people then get to decide to buy it or not accordingly.

But on what basis? On the basis of a near total lack of information or ability to obtain the information, except by spending a whole lot of time doing research about what experts on the topic have said about it!

There are innumerable things that I buy where I have extremely limited knowledge about the safety and quality aspects of the product. You want to dump me into a world where I'm buying blind.

You don't want me to be able to do what I did yesterday, compare the nutritional information on two packets of sliced ham and pick the one with less salt in it. Apparently, you want me to set up my own lab to work this out... or, something, I don't know.

My fridge has a sticker on it from a joint government/industry program, telling me that it has an energy efficiency rating of 4 stars on a 6 star scale and will consume about 455 kilowatt hours per year. You want to make it much, much harder for me to find out that information for each model of whitegoods before I even get as far as comparing different models.

You don't want my prescription only medicines to be prescription only. You'd happily let me pick the ones I feel like getting off the shelf with no real knowledge about whether they're appropriate for my medical situation.

You've got no problems if one of my electrical products fails to meet the standard that prevents it from electrocuting me. Buyer beware. Do the research yourself or risk getting fried by the bad brands, right?


I'll keep my "nanny" thanks. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orfeo,

Underwriters Laboratories, a private-sector organization, has set electrical standards since 1894. What's wrong with their work?

I generally agree with you about requiring important information on, or about, various products. And judging from Marvin's post above, he isn't objecting to that, either (unless I misunderstand him).

But let me tell you about another irksome situation. My front and back yards are quite small and, given terracing, trees, etc., not very canonical in the limited imaginations of lawn mower designers. When I moved here in 1986, I easily bought a reversible electric mower whose handle could flip over, so it could be operated from either end. It was very similar to what our next-door neighbor had forty years earlier. Ten years later, a friend burned it out and I needed to replace it. But by then, this style of lawn mower was not available. All one could find were models that needed to be turned around to change direction. These are much less practical for my situation (as, probably, many others').

I have to think that the older style is no longer available because someone in the gummint decided that it wasn't safe enough. But are those now offered any better? With every change of direction (i.e., very frequently), I now have to grapple with the cord. That means a chance of electrocution if the mower cuts it. It might be safer for some people but arguably not for me. Why can I no longer make my own decision?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I have to think that the older style is no longer available because someone in the gummint decided that it wasn't safe enough.

Sorry, Alogon, you've offered absolutely no evidence of this at all. Plenty of things I like are no longer available simply because they weren't popular and the market moved in a different direction.

I have a fantastic portable stereo with a cassette deck that can play in both directions and time a recording from a CD to get the switch of side right. I'm quite sure I couldn't buy one now. This isn't because the government banned cassettes.

[ 05. May 2012, 01:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
True... lawn mowers being such sexy products that fashions change even faster than with cars... [Biased]

Dozens of models are out there. I've just spent at least twenty minutes looking on the Web without finding a single reversible-- despite a newspaper article forlornly recommending them to consumers in 2009. Either manufacturers have become unusually unenterprising, or something is at work here beyond market forces.

Out of curiosity, I've asked the "expert" at one specialist site whether a certain model, or any he sells, has a reversible handle of the kind that was easy to find awhile back-- and if not, why not. Will gladly let you know what he says.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I tried for a job act a genuine government consumer product regulator in Canada. The list of banned products was small and those that were banned had a documented track record of killing people during their designed and expected use, such as Lawn Darts and orbital Baby Walkers.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Either manufacturers have become unusually unenterprising, or something is at work here beyond market forces.

My money is on the former. In all seriousness. That's the way the world goes for many products, the interesting variations in boutique companies aren't sustainable in a modern ecomony where competition from cheap, bulk, mass-produced versions overwhelms everything else. Being enterprising is simply too risky. The number of different lines produced is cut back.

Heck, just take a look through your supermarket to see this in action with your food.

Also, if someone is recommending these lawm mowers in 2009, it's pretty clear that they ARE obtainable, with difficulty, well after the time you say you couldn't get one, and that they're not banned. It would be utterly nonsensical for someone to be recommending in 2009 a product that you seem to believe was banned by 1996.

[ 05. May 2012, 02:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A single google search for "lawnmower reversible handle" found me one made by Black & Decker.

http://www.blackanddecker.com/outdoor/MM675.aspx

Anything else?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Orfeo. It would be nice if it were actually available. There seem to be nothing but false drops and broken links. I've made another inquiry (to the mfrs. themselves) and will report anything heard back.

There is a cryptic comment at the bottom of that page about "The swing handles bring back the flexibility that the safety regulations took away."

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There is a cryptic comment at the bottom of that page about "The swing handles bring back the flexibility that the safety regulations took away."

Yes, I know, but it's a ridiculous comment. If the safety regulations banned flip handles, does Black & Decker have any power to un-ban them? No. Only the safety regulations would have the power to un-ban something that the safety regulations banned.

The alternatives are that: 1. Black & Decker are selling a banned product, or 2. There was no such ban in the first place.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or maybe 3. Black and Decker were ingenious enough to design a product (a rather expensive one) that works around a previous ban; 4. The product is available only in other countries.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The horse's mouth?

These are not just ten suggestions, or criteria to earn a seal of approval.

"It is unlawful to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the United States any product subject to this standard that is not in conformity with the standard."

They are such that models with "a swing over handle" must meet additional requirements admittedly making them considerably more difficult to design and expensive to make. Hence the market appeal and viability that they previously enjoyed is reduced.

Defend them if you wish. But, as can happen with so many mandates, driving flip-handle mowers out of the market invokes the law of unintended consequences, increasing some dangers while reducing others.

This is approximately what I suspected.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't want me to be able to do what I did yesterday, compare the nutritional information on two packets of sliced ham and pick the one with less salt in it.

Yes, I do. In fact, that is exactly what I've been advocating - giving people the information and then letting them choose for themselves.

What I don't want is a situation where selling the one with more salt is completely illegal. I want that one to still be available for those who prefer the taste of salty ham to buy and eat if they so choose.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[/qb]

There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.

[/QUOTE]

There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. So risk, in these cases, is not so much risk of harm to the people involved in any activity, as risk of harm to the insurers' profits. In short, if people are being stopped from doing things, it may well be not the government, but big business that's to blame.

An interesting thought, perhaps, for those who doubt the power of business to exercise control over our lives.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Can you name me a left-wing authoritarian state that doesn't restrict sexual activity considerably more than ours does at present?

Does your state actually forbid any sex unless committed with animals, juveniles, close relatives or people who haven't agreed to it?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not yet (although you forgot prostitution. Both parties can consent, but apparently if there's money involved it doesn't count.) But, then, I'm not calling my state left-wing authoritarian, either--yet. Ask me again in ten years.

As for actual left-wing authoritarian states (assuming the term is meaningful)-- we probably wouldn't have enjoyed the sexual environment of the Soviet Union, for example.

Koppel on Sex in the Soviet Union

Gorby, that nice old softie, "is concerned enough to have set up a commission this month to 'take urgent measures to protect social morals.'" [Dec. 1990]. Koppel comments (after hearing horror stories), "Under socialism, the needs and feelings of individuals have always been secondary."

International Encyclopedia of Sexuality - Russia

quote:
Already in the 1920s, erotica was treated as morally and socially subversive. The only legitimate function of sexuality was reproduction. According to the influential party educator and sexologist, Aaron Zalkind, “sexual selection should proceed according to the line of a class revolutionary-proletarian consciousness. The elements of flirtation, courtship, and coquetry should not be introduced into love relationships” (1924). In the article on “Sexual Life” in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1940), the emphasis is exclusively on social control: the dangers of “unhealthy sexual interest” are discussed and the aim of sex education is clearly described as the “rational transmission of sex drive into the sphere of labor and cultural interests....

The history of the Soviet regime was one of sexual repression. Only the means of legitimation and phraseology of this suppression was changeable. In the 1920s, sexuality had to be suppressed in the name of the higher interests of the working class and Socialist revolution. In the 1930s, self-discipline was advocated for the sake of the Soviet state and Communist Party. In the 1950s, state-administrative control was gradually transformed into moral-administrative regulations, this time for the sake of stability of marriage and the family. But with all these ideological differences, the practical message regarding sex remained the same: DON’T DO IT! The Communist image of sexuality was always negative, and the need for strict external social control was always emphasized.

When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that "nanny state" is like "political correctness" in that it has no actual meaning other than "stuff I don't like." Calling either Soviet Russia or the USA a nanny state is an insult to nannies everywhere.

As for addicts - sorry, SMOKERS - setting themselves up as defenders of our freedoms? [Roll Eyes] Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney. OliviaG

ETA Prostitution is legal in Canada, and several related laws have just been deemed unconstitutional.

[ 05. May 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: OliviaG ]

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip>
When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.

but ... effectively?

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
As for addicts - sorry, SMOKERS - setting themselves up as defenders of our freedoms? [Roll Eyes] Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney.

Freedom needs all the defenders it can get. The thing about free, or freedom-loving, people is that they are into many different things and it's o.k. What are fatties and speedballs?

If it matters, I'm addicted to smoking only if you define "addict" such that one can go without it for days and barely give it a thought.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip>
When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.

but ... effectively?
Probably not, but so what? The fact that a government can't accomplish its ostensible objective doesn't mean that it can't produce plenty of misery in the attempt. The U.S. "war on drugs" should be proof enough of that.

Given much of a choice, I wouldn't want to try stepping over the line in such a regime like that on the assumption that its control is ineffective, would you?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. So risk, in these cases, is not so much risk of harm to the people involved in any activity, as risk of harm to the insurers' profits. In short, if people are being stopped from doing things, it may well be not the government, but big business that's to blame.

An interesting thought, perhaps, for those who doubt the power of business to exercise control over our lives. [/QB]

Many of the requirements also only really apply when you have big business (or many small businesses) (potentially) also providing anti-nannying.

To take motorcycle suits...you need only wear a helmet, you can cycle in a mini and crop top if you like. The nanny state is there but not in full force.
The pizza delivery company might want it's employees doing that..and could make apply a fair amount of pressure on it's employees. In a statistical way it would be directly harming them.
Each of the employees and each of the employers can be fairly sure they won't be the one picking up the tab...but the government, insurance and society knows it will lose.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Similarly in many cases the employer is allowed to provide stuff outside the standard if they can prove it is (appropriately) safe. The appropriate Directive is likely a reasonable anchor.

The easiest way of proving that you took reasonable steps to ensure safety is of course to buy a product that has been certified to meet the standard. As then you can finger the blame at the manufacturer* who can then blame the certifier* who can then blame the standard writers*. Who will hopefully only make the mistake once in Europe/the region rather than once per company.

*who will also try to check that the claim is actually valid and the complainer isn't covering up dodgy practices.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ISTM that "nanny state" is like "political correctness" in that it has no actual meaning other than "stuff I don't like." Calling either Soviet Russia or the USA a nanny state is an insult to nannies everywhere.

You're right, Olivia. "Nanny state" is too benign. Let's use another term, if we can agree on it. I nominate "authoritarian".

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Unites States is authoritarian because you can't get the lawnmower you want? [Killing me]

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I already wrote above, not yet, but wait awhile. Stare decisis.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools