Posted on 01/07/2008 4:21:46 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
'Nanny State' is the name given to government policies that treat adults like children and try to protect people from every possible harm or offense, especially from their own choices. Ultimately, it is about control, as shown in David Harsanyi's new book, Nanny State, which compiles numerous examples of what he terms the "tyranny of the busybody." The book's wide range and satiric tone are indicated by its long subtitle: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America Into a Nation of Children.
Harsanyi, a columnist for the Denver Post, breaks up his chapters into short sections with headings that mock the nannies who would use legislation or litigation to control the personal behavior of others...The text itself is written in the casual, irreverent tone of a biting newspaper column, putting the author's incredulous outrage on display throughout.
Nanny State's greatest value is its detailed cataloguing of nanny proposals, the people pushing them, and their tactics. After finishing this book, readers will find it difficult to dismiss, as just another nutty isolated incident, the report on the evening news about the latest lawsuit against fast-food companies for causing obesity and the claims by lawyers that their clients had no clue that eating Big Macs three meals a day was unhealthy. The ban on trans fats and the attack on Girl Scout cookies are only the beginning. Nannies use the "obesity epidemic" and concern for "the children" to justify all manner of meddling, always for our own good, of course. This paternalistic logic goes far beyond food.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
The most dangerous sentence in the English language:
“There ought to be a law...”
There’s no doubt in my mind that these types of people have a “Hillary” mentality of superiority.
They also have a belief that “we the people” who are supposed to be the rulers of this nation are in fact their “children” who need to be controlled for our own good.
I think there are other people with money that may fund them.
The people are left-wing Soros types plus insurance companies that may see lower costs in nanny state laws.
ping
My $0.02 on this: these people that you write of, they're also found on the Right as well. If you want an example, click the link the brings up the whole book review and read the last paragraph. That sort of thing doesn't come from the Left...and it is equally troubling, in my [not so] humble opinion.
I’ll take that dollar too. What some of our Nanny State FReeper FRiends here don’t understand is that because the left owns the media and the culture, if they ask the state to enforce some law they like, they will get 100 more that they don’t.
Conservatives need to learn to just saw no to state intervention - from the left AND the right...
bump
I won’t disagree with you but for me its a liberal manifestation with business connections (insurance) that could be called conservative.
Also some “evangelical-fundamentalist” Christians believe in controlling laws that would be extreme and unconstitutional regarding smoking, drunk driving, food, etc.
These people see themselves as “conservative.”
Mike Huckabee is known as a “nanny stater” and he would call himself “conservative” although these ideas of control are not in my opinion.
So true. Our Republican mayor is a big time nanny state-er. We built a skateboard park and then confined it behind a 10’ fence, limited hours, useage fees, endless rules, and guess what? Nobody bothers with it. Latchkey kids either risk it on the streets or sit at home playing poker and watching videos. Yeah the kids are fatsos, but at least nobody gets sued, right?
In my estimation, the leftists who champion the Nanny State ‘solutions’ to perceived social problems are under significant delusions and regard themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the great unwashed masses.
I’ve said for years that ‘rich democrat’ is an oxymoron.
It’s high time we get back to the Consitutional foundations of this grand experiment. Limited government, part-time elected officials (at the Federal level), and strict constructionists on the Federal bench.
There may be a few successes, but I've never seen a skateboard park last more than a couple of years, rules or no rules.
What's with all the name calling?
I didn't know how to take your reply...until I did some digging. What I'd like to know: what's up with this exchange between you and another FReeper?
No wonder you're defensive about the name calling!
At the heart of liberalism are two propositions: That the government should wipe every tearand that the the average person is incapable of making the “right” decisions about their lives and must be “directed” by the elites.
There, fixed it! Liberalism, properly defined in its classical sense, is for limited government and individual liberty.
--the latter has overtaken the former--
Sounds like a good book - thanks for the heads-up.
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.