Power Line News

My radical days are far behind me, but it still feels good to say “smash the state” now and then, especially when we’re talking about the nanny sta

» View the article

While I didn’t hear the podcast, I have read the book.  On the whole I found it rather unsatisfying.  While it was entertaining to read the list of transgressions against our freedoms, I felt that they were presented without analysis.  It was too much preaching to the choir.  It would have been a much more impressive and valuable book if a little more time had been spent explaining WHY some of the nannyisms were bad.  To really step up the book needed to present the serious arguments in favor of the regulations and deconstruct them rather than just sneering at them.  Yes they generally deserved a good sneer, but the compelling argument for the sneer just wasn’t there.

Lest I be accused of doing the same thing, let me give an example.  Some wacko town on SoCal had a series of laws stating that dog bowls had to be untippable and filled once a day, that dog houses had to have 3 walls and a roof, and that dogs couldn’t be on a leash for more than 4 hours.  The book never spent a moment thinking about why those laws were implemented.  I have seen yards where dogs were tied to trees with no shelter or water during the entire day the owners were at work.  Frequently they would be staked out in the back all night as well.  That’s animal abuse.  I wise society protects social animals from that kind of cruelty.  The question should have been whether the specific laws were an appropriate answer to that kind of mistreatment.  I would argue that the laws were FAR to specific and subject to abuse by overbearing officials.  A discussion of alternatives would have been valuable. 

My liberal acquaintances would not be moved by the way the book presented this case.  If the author wanted to compel and convince a more thoughtful and complete discussion would have been infinitely better.  Sorry dude.

Hairy

"Smash the Nanny State!”

Would that we could....sigh

Hairy Buddah - 27 October 2007 01:26 AM

Some wacko town on SoCal had a series of laws stating that dog bowls had to be untippable and filled once a day, that dog houses had to have 3 walls and a roof, and that dogs couldn’t be on a leash for more than 4 hours.  The book never spent a moment thinking about why those laws were implemented.  I have seen yards where dogs were tied to trees with no shelter or water during the entire day the owners were at work.  Frequently they would be staked out in the back all night as well.  That’s animal abuse.  I wise society protects social animals from that kind of cruelty.  The question should have been whether the specific laws were an appropriate answer to that kind of mistreatment.  I would argue that the laws were FAR to specific and subject to abuse by overbearing officials.  A discussion of alternatives would have been valuable.

Perhaps a more philosophic or historic debate would have helped, such as, can you imagine any of our founders actually contemplating government having the sort of power that is needed to regulate dog houses? Just because one segment of society wants to prevent actions by other parts of society does not mean they have the right to regulate or legislate such behavior.

A proper law would be ont that spoke of cruelty to animals, set a limit, but did not regulate all lesser behavior.

Bottom line, the discussion should be about the absolute limits of government power and not its excesses, one by one.

What can you expect from a government that calls America’s warriors “our children” and “kids”?

As far as the doghouse regulations, if you wont step up and take responsibility for yourself, the nanny state will gladly do it for you.  Common sense would have not necessitated dog regulations from government.  But common sense is in short supply today.

The “Nanny State” concept (I have not read the book) is that some people in government have taken on themselves the task of telling the rest of us what to do; often with ideal intentions but also lacking in common sense. They do not pass laws that are general guidelines, they pass laws that micro-manage us, our kids, our behavior, etc. When the inevitable exception arises, these same people excuse the perpetrator IF the person accused is of their ilk, a particular subset of society, etc.

The Nanny State wants to control our kids from age 3-18. They want to control our health care system. They want to take our money so they can “redistribute” to others.

If you are so interested in “helping” others by giving them ________ versus helping them to learn and earn, why not just give them money from your pocket? I prefer to select my own donees.

Micro-managing (such as the dog house) identifies people who either cannot see the big picture or are so busy looking at a huge big picture solution (for which they will not be held accountable b/c the solution will take decades to show results - think global warming) that they totally miss the fact that humans are quite capable of making good decisions, again IF, they are given enough data from multiple points of view. The filtering of politically incorrect information leads to stupid and bad decisions, as well as micro-management.