Skip to comments.
The slippery slope [Nannny State Activisim]
Townhall.com ^
| Jun 14, 2006
| Walter E. Williams
Posted on 06/14/2006 7:38:10 AM PDT by Small-L
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
He's right. But, the only way to stop it is going to be to overthrow the Nanny-State liberals and the stop the lobbiest cash flow. It's obvious that we're not going to be able to depend on the Republican Party to do anything to fix it.
1
posted on
06/14/2006 7:38:13 AM PDT
by
Small-L
To: Small-L
I hate those anti-tobacco commercials still running on tv. The "progressives" want to hammer this template into our brains and then use it for who-knows-what in the future. Perhaps there will be a day when we all have to step on a scale and then are told what we'll be ALLOWED to order. And, of course, they won't stop with food.
2
posted on
06/14/2006 7:45:08 AM PDT
by
ChocChipCookie
(Democrats: soulless minions of orthodoxy.)
To: Small-L
" Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?"
Here's what I propose: mandatory gym classes for everyone -- report at your appointed time to the nearest YMCA or High school gym; no television broadcast after 11:00 pm; ration cards for alcoholic beverages; bars, restaurants, theatres, etc. must close by 11:00 pm. /sarc
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Might as well add calorie-rationing for supermarket shopping too. How could they stop with restaurants and not continue on to make sure you didn't buy too many calories or fat grams for your household?
4
posted on
06/14/2006 7:58:49 AM PDT
by
trebb
("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
To: Small-L
I love Walter Williams, but in this case he is missing an important point. Smoking affects the air the rest of us breathe. Granted the secondhand smoke studies were probably trumped up. But they aren't entirely wrong either. Even if you just say the smoke is bothersome to non-smokers, you have a case of one person's freedom restricting another person's freedom.
That's not to say I think taxing cigarettes more is fair. Nor do I favor most anti-smoking measures. (Let's be real; there are some places that must ban smoking -- like hospitals). However, smokers have themselves to blame a lot of times because they are rude about their nasty habit.
5
posted on
06/14/2006 8:01:03 AM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: Small-L
If smokers would have used their human hamster balls when satisfying their addiction none of this slippery-slope nanny-state stuff would have happened.
6
posted on
06/14/2006 8:03:38 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Gabz; Just another Joe; elkfersupper; Mears; SheLion
7
posted on
06/14/2006 8:04:19 AM PDT
by
CSM
("Most men's inappropriate thoughts end as soon as the girl talks..." - Dinsdale, 5/30/06)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
"Even if you just say the smoke is bothersome to non-smokers, you have a case of one person's freedom restricting another person's freedom."
The smoking restrictions are not an issue of the smoker's rights vs. the non-smoker's rights. Neither the smoker, nor the non-smoker trump the rights of the property owner. However, the legislative actions that ban smoking in privately owned establishments have allowed the anti-smoking zealot's rights to trump the property owner's rights.
I am fine with allowing the owner to make the decision and then allowing the market to reward or punish that owner for his decision.
Of course, you will see many FReepers that don't like the free market.
8
posted on
06/14/2006 8:07:40 AM PDT
by
CSM
("Most men's inappropriate thoughts end as soon as the girl talks..." - Dinsdale, 5/30/06)
To: Moonman62
"....none of this slippery-slope nanny-state stuff would have happened."
Keep thinking that. You will be trampled in your naivete.
9
posted on
06/14/2006 8:09:19 AM PDT
by
CSM
("Most men's inappropriate thoughts end as soon as the girl talks..." - Dinsdale, 5/30/06)
To: Small-L
As usual Dr. Williams is spot on. I fear for our country because our citizens and especially our kids are so damned ignorant that they buy into this "Government cares about you" claptrap. I fear most Americans see nothing wrong with this. I think, therefore I am Libertarian
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
mandatory gym classes for everyone -- report at your appointed time to the nearest YMCA or High school gym; no television broadcast after 11:00 pm; ration cards for alcoholic beverages; bars, restaurants, theatres, etc. must close by 11:00 pm.
As a teenager, I lived in a place similar to what you describe, only worse - a military school! ARRRRGH!
11
posted on
06/14/2006 8:12:18 AM PDT
by
Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
To: Small-L; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...
A really and truly NANNY STATE PING-A-ROONIE!!!!!!!!!!
12
posted on
06/14/2006 8:12:19 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(Proud to be a WalMartian --- beep)
To: Small-L
I suspect several of us here are guilty of maintaining improper sleep habits, excess caffeine intake, 'unhealthy' emphasis on religion and, worst of all...gluttonous internet consumption. All crimes worthy of punititve taxation and regulation.
But, to paraphrase President Chuck when confronted by the nanny enemy regarding the gun issues, they can have my keyboard when they pry it 'from my cold, dead hands'!
13
posted on
06/14/2006 8:12:51 AM PDT
by
BuddhaBrown
(Path to enlightenment: Four right turns, then go straight until you see the Light!)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
As a non-smoker, I agree with you, but I also will defend the smoker's rights, too. What's wrong with smoking/non-smoking sections in resturants (We've made all resurants non-smoking here in GA). I had no problem with smoking and non-smoking section in airplanes. Let the free market solve the issues. If a bar wants to be a smoking bar and the one across the street wants to be non-smoking, then let the market decide which one survives--hopefully both.
Williams is right. Where does it stop?
14
posted on
06/14/2006 8:13:28 AM PDT
by
Small-L
(I love my country, but I despise the politicians who run (ruin) it.)
To: Small-L
At one time, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society would solicit money to conduct research and run anti-smoking ads. Now, they still solicit money but instead of doing research and running anti-smoking ads, they hire lobbyists to lobby the federal and state governments to spend taxpayer money on research and ant-smoking ads. Yes, we have come a long way!
15
posted on
06/14/2006 8:13:51 AM PDT
by
jackieaxe
(Democrats are mired in a culture of screwing English speaking, taxpaying, law abiding citizens!)
To: Small-L
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. Uh, the template was set by the anti-drug zealots. Tobacco was just next on the list.
16
posted on
06/14/2006 8:14:40 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: trebb
But..but...but don't we need big brother to warn us about dangerous FAT especially TRANS FAT and what about the kiddies eating all those dangerous SUGAR foods that do not even have warning labels. Some kids can still just go in a store and buy some Hostess chocolate cupcakes...alone...without parental supervision! What about warnings on white bread, whole milk, eggs, bacon, chips, Baby Ruth bars, etc.
When are we going to get those extra taxes on chocolate bars? Can you believe full-size Goo Goo clusters can still be bought three-for-a-dollar at certain places. That is due to their undertaxed marshmellow, caramel, chocolate, and peanuts.
Let's be busy bodies!
17
posted on
06/14/2006 8:16:17 AM PDT
by
Monterrosa-24
(Pork barbeque, bacon, pork chops, sausage, ribs, ham, pork rinds are so good and so offensive to...)
To: Small-L
How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? Be darned if anyone will tell me I can't take home food I actually paid for. They'd better pro-rate the check, then!
18
posted on
06/14/2006 8:19:24 AM PDT
by
Malacoda
(The Posting Police need an enema.)
To: Small-L
I would think that prohibiting "doggy bags" would be counterproductive if one wants to curb obesity. If the customer were not allowed to take part of his meal home to eat later, he would have to eat the whole meal at once in order to get his money's worth.
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Smoking affects the air the rest of us breathe
When I first became pregnant, I was highly sensitive to smells, don't ask me why, and I am still this way. I got on an elevator and a man had taken an "Elvis shower" with his cologne. I lasted one floor before I had to get off, and run to the nearest restroom.
I feel that its not only smoking that affects the air we breath, what about over doing perfume? Failure to use deodorant? Both of these affect my air? Is that ok with you?
and yes, I am a smoker, and I am a very careful to respect non smokers around me, for I am treated like a pariah, I will not act like one.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson