Interesting discussion with a co-worker about "Nanny State" policies. [View all]
It started with motorcycle helmets. Here in Michigan we used to have a "require to wear helmets" for the motorcycle crowd, but it was recently changed.
I do not support the change. I am technically a "pro-Nanny State" person because I support protecting people from their own stupidity (as in "not wearing a helmet"
. Please Note: I do not ride, but have friends and family who do, and I support their right to ride and be treated with respect while using the road, but the "helmet less" folk scare me spitless. Lol!
My co-worker does ride, and he does wear a helmet, but he is *against* anyone "forcing him" to wear one. He is "anti-Nanny State" and we were able to have an awesome discussion about the topic.
It got me thinking about the differences in our philosophies, and I am interested in the thoughts of others on DU about the "pro/anti" Nanny State worldviews.
I personally wonder if my "nurturing, maternal, protective" instincts - where I basically spend a good portion of my life protecting the young of our species from making stupid, potentially fatal mistakes - accounts for some of my "yes, we need to protect as many people as possible from self-inflicted stupidity" versus the attitude of many folk (including my beloved husband and this good friend) that "stupidity should be painful, with persistent stupidity being fatal and a good way to keep the gene pool clean" (usually said in a humorous "Darwin Award" way) might account for some of the differences?
Our discussion today touched on seat belts, cell phones, air bags and drunk drivers; I brought up consumer safety issues (cribs that kill!). We talked about how he felt his kids could make decisions for themselves / he'd trained them not to be stupid once they left his house, and I talked about the fact I expect teenagers / young adults to be unaware of their own mortality and requiring reasonable guidance because of their belief in their own immortality, and thus being totally okay with "nanny-stating" them as much as possible within reasonable guidelines (see: motorcycle helmets and seat belts as part of my definition).
I really like policies that keep more people alive and healthy, even if the people involved are stupid (or young or inexperienced or whatever). I also think reasonable people can find common ground between "that seems like a good idea" or "okay, demanding everyone wear padding to protect them from life's boo-boos is a little over the top."
Thoughts? 
= new reply since forum marked as read