When Does Safety Go Too Far?

I agree with you that many of these new regulations are stifling.

I feel parents are causing and contributing to many of these nanny regulations.

Example look how kids get to school. It's bad enough local kids are bused let alone parents waiting at the bus stop with their car running to pick-up and drop of their kid.

If you want to get rid of these regulations then we are going to need to give a back-bone to a lot of the parents out there.

I think it has gone too far. One member in jaxy's blog pointed out that bb guns, fireworks and sling shots had been banned for many years in Australia. The problem with such draconian measures, when they take place on this ever shrinking planet, is that they tend to set precedent, and are quickly adopted by other countries.

Here in the US, I'm not sure, but I think that spanking one's own child is considered assault. Will time-outs become the only accepted method of punishment, and be signed into law? It wouldn't surprise me.

Now we've got anti bullying laws on the books, required sensitivity training, no scores kept in kids sports to avoid hurt feelings, dumbing down class assignments so that all kids pass, on and on. I'd like to hear about how all of this is helping.

It's not. It's making them ill prepared for what's out there.

The value of "Time Out" is that it makes excellent training of the child for adulthood when he will spend years in prison because he was not taught proper discipline as a child

Bill

You bring up a great point. We have focused so hard on making everything "nice" for everyone, that prisons too have been included.

Prison has become nothing more than grownup "time out". Criminals have absolutely no fear of prison, and in our nice, sensitive new world, criminals are now considered victims.

Interestingly, liberal California has the highest rate of recidivism, while Arizona has the lowest. I'm sure that's largely due to sheriff Joe Arpaio, a guy whom the feds are trying to stop, because he's not being nice enough to the prisoners.

If you had to wear pink underwear and eat green bologna, would you want to go back to jail?

Hell no! The poor prisoners have to endure conditions that are almost as bad as the ones our soldiers have to endure.

I'd head over to California, where they understand that prisoners have rights. The food is better, and they still have most of the cable channels. Not to mention, state of the art workout equipment, pool and ping pong tables, basketball..................

Actually the Federal government just ordered California to release a bunch of prisoners because the medical care was so bad. They are so over populated they are being housed in any available space on bunks set en masse in large gymnasium style rooms. All those ping pong tables and such have been pushed to the side for bunk beds. Apparently, it has created a serious problem for the guard and the prisoners being housed in an open space like that where they can kill people in their sleep and they are in an uncontrolled large mass. Of course that is probably coming from the prison guards union.

That's odd........I would have thought that a state that holds focus groups and looks at criminals as human beings with basic needs, rights and feelings would be churning out model citizens and serve as a deterrent to crime as a lifestyle......Huh....maybe they should talk to sheriff Joe, he doesn't seem to have a problem with overcrowding or repeat visitors.

What happens when the prisoners are put out on the street? Do they immediately qualify for Medicaid?

the conditions in California Jails are typically mandated by the Prison Guards Union and the Federal government. Every decade or so the Federal government requires California to release prisoners because of overcrowding issues, and underfunding. They give the State the option of funding improvements to living conditions or release prisoners. Keeping the prisoners happy makes the working conditions easier for the guards, and facilitates their corrupt activities to aid the prisoners such as selling them Cell Phones (they just found a cellphone on Manson and he is locked down, wonder who got it for him).

And, actually you are wrong about Arizona also, sheriff Joe has nothing to do with the Prisons, he is a county sheriff, he only controls the county jail, he has not impact on prisoners lifestyles in Arizona. Sheriff Joe has a lot of repeat visitors, after all it is only a county jail, which includes a drunk tank. Do they actually track recitivism in county jails, since they are only temporary short-term holding for the real criminals and well a place for those misdemeanors and traffic violators who don't pay fees. How would you even compare that to felons? The Arizona prisons are apparently a lot nicer than his jail, I have met a few people who spent time in both. They are even apparently nicer than California prisons, not as over crowded (a prisoner can have their own room), easier to get a community college education, and fewer different types of gangs.

Okay I was wrong........what can I say? I like sheriff Joe, I'm sure you got my point.

Back in the mid 80's I ran the paint and glass installation on a new federal penitentiary down in Georgia. I can tell you........it was nice!!!

After we finished the minimum security section, they opened up the food line for all of the workers on site, a couple of days before they started bringing in prisoners, ( Jim Baker was one of the first ones there), hot food line, salad bar, etc. Good food too!

Maximum security had hardwood doors on the cells and the common areas were all carpeted, also very nice. I decided back then, that if I ever get destitute, I'm not going homeless.........I'm going to federal prison.

Of course the downside is that the worst criminals in the biggest gangs are in the Federal prisons, and run their gangs like the nortenos and MS-13 from the federal prisons. So you would probably want some affiliation before entering, and a certain willingness to adapt to a same sexual lifestyle (or make sure you are quite ugly). Federal prisons are a great place to operate a multinational criminal enterprise from.

These "nanny" laws are just a symptom of a much more insidious problem here in the US.

There is little or no justification in the US or even the individual States' Constitutions for most of these laws. It's a direct assault on our freedoms by those who feel they know better than the rest of us, and don't trust us, as a whole, to make common sense individual decisions. "They" want to ensure that the least common denominator is protected from themselves so they feel they have to impose on all.

I actually watched an interview on tv with a Congressman. He was asked if the Constitutionality of a law was considered when it was passed. His response was something along the lines of, "Why should it be? Congress hasn't considered the Constitution in nearly any issue it has addressed in the last 50 years." And, with more and more activist judges imposing social legislation from the bench, they get away with it more and more every year.

Our elected officials (and civil servants) take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet almost none of them live up to that oath, and with impunity.

It's time for us as the Citizen/Management of this country to make sure our officials (I refuse to call them leaders) toe the line in regard to the Constitution, or in a very few years we will be down to the economic and social level of many 3rd world countries.

And, if we can't make them toe the line with our vote (or penal system) in due course, it'll be time to exact our 2nd Amendment rights.

Hooker

The problem the general public doesn't see it that way they are happy the way things are.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." – Alexander Tytler

Of course, a corollary of this is what is actually happening today. The politician ensures his ability to impose himself (Constitutionally or otherwise) by distributing alms to his constituents and benefactors. Oh, and gerrymandering helps too.

IMO, all of our 3 branches are practicing the above.

Hooker

IMO, all of our 3 branches are practicing the above.

Yup

Yep. Me too. And I think the Tea Party thinks so, too. Viva La (November) Revolution.

It's definitely not just in the US where this is happening.

One thing I think that should be mentioned, is that the birth of a lot of these policies come from parents and people in general, that are out looking to win the, "Lawsuit Lottery", and the lawyers that are willing to take on frivolous lawsuits.

That part doesn't surprise me. What does, is that they win!!!! Big bucks too.

Where are the judges that should be telling people that being stupid doesn't equal a big payday and get out of my courtroom?

People have come to expect to get paid for every bump, scrape, fall, slip...........spilled cup of coffee, etc., etc.

We are creating a society in which the common thinking is, if anything hurts you, it must be someone else's fault, and therefore they must pay.

Needless to say, many lawyers go on to a career in politics.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots ..." - Thomas Jefferson.

That time may very well be upon us for the exact reason you mention.

It's not knee-jerk reaction. It all boils down to risk management. And the $ cost and the cost to free will.

You're proposing that we protect everybody 100% of the time. Realistically, we all know that's impossible.

So, what is acceptable risk? 1 person losing their hand/vision in 100,000? 1 in 1000?

I guess you want to prevent me from enjoying something like motorcycling because you did something really stupid and paid the price for it, even if I'm self-aware enough not to do that particular stupid something.

Well, my response is, "Get out of my life. What gives you the right to impose your experience on me or anybody else?" <said mostly serious but without malice>

Hooker

Sadly, you've just proven my point about "knee-jerk" reactions.

IF you had actually read my post you would have seen that I did not remotely propose the positions you claim I did. Rather what I did do was simply suggest that we (myself included) consider the reasoning behind the "overprotective" people with whom we might not agree. And in so doing try to keep the debate civil.

Instead of taking the message given, you curiously chose to fabricate a message of your own liking (or rather dislike) and then take me to task for the content of it. I suppose I should at least be grateful that it was "without malice".

I'm well aware that virtually any human endeavor is a constant, ever-shifting balance between two or more forces. So it has been since early humans had to decide between hunting or gathering and so it will be 10,000 generations from now. This subject is no different.

Hooker,

Take it easy buddy, you're sounding emotional.

I didn't start the thread to find some like minded individuals, so we could sit around and congratulate each other for being on the right side of the debate, that would be pointless. I also don't want to dissuade people that think differently, from posting.

Lets try to keep it real. Thanks man.

Sorry, I tend to get angry when I ask a question and it gets sidetracked by emotion based argument.

For those who may not have noticed my question to Guest, I'll clean it up and restate:

What is an acceptable death/injury rate for children's activities before some governmental agency is mandated to step in to regulate said activity?

Zero is not an acceptable answer as it is impossible to attain.

Hooker

Thanks for the post. You're right tragedy does happen.

And you're also right, that people don't jump out of bed intending to squelch freedom. However, they will jump out of bed and say, " If this bill, that I'm going to introduce, and impose on over 300 million people, (in the US), if it passes, saves one life, then it will have been worth it, because you can't put a price tag on life."

Remember the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That's part of the thing that scares me. I have no doubt that the people behind these laws truly feel as if they are acting for the greater good.

I'm also confident that we can keep the conversation civil.

There are those people who value one life above the freedoms of the masses. IMO, these are the fanatics. If left unchecked, these people would ban anything that has any death rate. Once accidental death has been addressed, then it would move to injury and next thing we know, our kids can't use a paper and pencil due to an unacceptable risk of a paper cut. As already stated above, you can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Here's a couple thoughts....

1) There are businesses based on the value, in dollars, of human life (such as insurance companies).

2) There are businesses based on providing entertainment. (pick one)

Let's arrange for the two to get together and put some hard numbers to determine where a reasonable risk line is!

This is a copy of my comments from the original post, My argument is 100,000 lost lives better than yours,

"Here is the only true statistic - Australia banned fireworks, air rifles and sling shots many years ago, adding since recorded time the total number of deaths an injuries from all of them combined, they do not equate to the deaths and injuries from drugs in Australia in one years.

Spare us from do gooder morons who have given our children nothing exciting to do and are personally responsible for the deaths and injury of thousands who turned elsewhere for exciting entertainment. Go ahead ban sledding and murder some more of our children.

Remember the title was not "is it dangerous?" the title was "it is dangerous" whoever wrote this can Go crawl under a rock with the junkies they and those like them created."

In:

"Here is the only true statistic - Australia banned fireworks, air rifles and sling shots many years ago, adding since recorded time the total number of deaths an injuries from all of them combined, they do not equate to the deaths and injuries from drugs in Australia in one years."

Are you implying that the drug use is the direct result of banning fireworks, air rifles and sling shots, and only of the banning of those items?

It looks like unsupported opinion, especially:

adding since recorded time the total number of deaths an injuries from all of them combined

100 years?, 1000 years?

what were the weapons of choice for the native population before the english arrived?

fireworks can be a fire danger, which was probably a contributing factor in the prohibition

without context & attribution

"Here is the only true statistic - Australia banned fireworks, air rifles and sling shots many years ago, adding since recorded time the total number of deaths an injuries from all of them combined, they do not equate to the deaths and injuries from drugs in Australia in one years."

is the equivalent of

nah huh is too

Just thought I'd jump in for a little statistic and trust me, I hate them:

Which animal causes the most deaths to humans?

Well, it is the beloved horse, not Sharks, Hippos, Croc's or whatever. Now you try to regulate that in the land of the free, I don't think so, not even in the land of the freer.

I bet'cha some of these have caused deaths so they should be outlawed

Stop the world, I want to get off, Ky.

You are wrong, if only this time

Besides "Animals"?

What! me wrong?

This can't be happening! Oh No! Guilty of sloppy reading ...

Fortunately it's statistics - so I can demand the range be limited to "kids"

^{_{So am I still (gulp) wrong?}}

The horse are you sure, I would have guessed bees.

While, I know from other threads that I don't go as far as you, in general, I agree with your position, but I am going to play Devil's Advocate anyway, I cannot stand to see too much agreement. Before I do though, I want to make the point that the problem is not necessarily with the law itself, but with the regulations promulgated to obtain compliance with the law. Sometimes, the regulators use a broad brush and outlaw three good things along with the behavior they want to eliminate.

Busing children to school. There has always been risk to unaccompanied children but it wasn't publicized, it was kept as quiet as possible as though it was a shame on the community. Now everyone knows the dirty little secret, we guard our children, evolution has hard wired us to do so.

Corporal punishment. I would allow it only if it is possible to place limits on the level, on the intensity, of it. If you advocate complete freedom for the parents to use their judgment, how many dead children per million is acceptable? how many broken arms? how many children so cowed that they cannot raise the spirit to say "Boo" to a goose.

Guns. I am a city boy, a Londoner so I grew up with out the multiplicity of guns in the environment. One of the drawbacks of firing a bullet in a crowded city is that it is likely to hit the wrong target. We have a conflict between the supply of guns to appropriate and inappropriate environments. We have a conflict between people's right to control their own space. The cities would like to stop the inflow of guns but they are prevented by the people of the more rural and appropriate places who call it the thin edge of the wedge. In doing so, they take away the cities rights to write the law that they want for themselves.

I was informally studying childhood employment a century ago. The law said that children couldn't work until they were 12 years old, but they only had to say they were twelve. I presume that the families couldn't afford birth certificates. The result was that there were actual 12YO miners with three years of experience, and some who didn't live that long. Some worked the maximum number of looms in the mills, something we decry now if it happens in Pakistan or some other third world country. Our 12YOs don't work in the mines now because of laws and regulations.

While I was looking at the working children, I saw that over 100,000 miners had been killed in the mines before a new set of safety regulations were promulgated. I don't remember the date, but it doesn't seem important compared to 100,000+ deaths.

Enough. I hope I have shown that law and regulation is not bad in and of itself, and that one woman's view of a good balance is another woman's view of lopsidedness.

I'm not avocating getting rid of all the safety laws, but there is such a thing as over kill. Every single minute of our lives doesn't need a law or regulation.

Parents that don't know the difference between a spanking and a brutal beating are not going to be stopped by any laws.

It's the parent that swats his/her kid in the butt in public and then gets arrested and brought up on child abuse charges that pays the price.

Same with the gun laws here in the US. All of the laws are only applied to the law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about any stinking gun laws.

While the rest of us are going through lengthy background checks and waiting periods, the bad guys are buying and selling guns in some alley 24/7.

Most of the guns in the city are bought by straw buyers in the more rural areas, who then sell to inner city.

Saying that, "...there is too much regulation..." is sloganeering. It is meaningless without a limiting qualification. I went to the extremes to draw the "too far" response. I was involved in a discussion, here where I live,with a couple of guys who favor deregulation. I asked them how far back did they want to go, 10 years, 20 years, a 100 years, and they treated my like a lunatic. But it needs definition or it is just a slogan. Each year brings more regulation, how many years worth should be peeled off?

The mine owners cried "Over regulation." when the first mine safety laws were passed.

What is the balance? Is the balance the same for all communities?

How far should we go until we are all straped to a chair and have robots do the work for us?

combat flying

Mining

Writing.

Teaching

So, yeah...the short answer is....um....yes.

I was referring to something like in the movie Surrogate. Where robots (androids) take over the daily lives of everyone. While the people are safe at home strapped into a chair.

It's not a matter of years worth, it's a matter of peeling off the ridiculous.

Case in point: Was it a good idea to remove lead from paint? Yes

Is it a good idea to force a painter to get a lead abatement certification, build a plastic enclosure around a window, wear a full body suit, and prove full containment so he can scrape, prime and finish a window sill? No, No, No

Wow, 100,000 sounds like such a large number of people when it is expressed by itself. Of course more people die from automobile accidents, but...

So lets see, about 30 million people in US around 1900, 100,000 over some undefined period of time in the 19th century die. Oh I assumed it was US only, but guess it could have been multinational. About 3% over a century. I wonder how many people died while riding a horse?

I've been following the sledding topic and now this one because topics like this tend to make me question deeply the reasons for some of my core beliefs/feelings. On one hand, freedom is important... don't take away my rights because of some grieving mothers cause. I feel for her, but don't erode freedom by taking away my ability to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt (which I always do ) because someone else chose not to.

On the other hand I do think it is completely reasonable to ban/fix/safeguard something that has a high probability of getting hurt, maimed, or killed.

And therein lies my dilemma... What exactly is high probability? I have toyed with putting an actual rate to it and found it very uncomfortable to do so. If someone has a one in a million chance of getting hurt is that acceptable? What about 1 in 1000?

Is it reasonable to look at this from a cost/benefit standpoint? Take sledding for example, does preventing one persons injury outweigh the loss of happiness for the 1000 others? (I don't know what the rate is, but the point is made.)

I do know that there are some things that just make NO sense to me as to why there ISN'T better safeguards... Speeding still ranks as one of the top causes in traffic deaths here in the US. The fact is there are millions of cars in the US that can move at 100+mph (completely unnecessary) and yet there are all these other "bubble wrap" issues generating discussions and eroding freedoms.

Full disclosure; I am the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Texas. I will try to keep my response pertinent to the original question and the intent of forum, which is engineering.

My answer is that such laws have gone too far and kids are not better served by parents avoiding their responsibility, allowing politicians to serve as surrogate parents.

Many of us work in industries where government scrutinizes procedures and operations of our workplace. If government did not do so, would there be no scrutiny? Clearly there are workplaces that derive their own procedures to mitigate risk. The cost of production loss, injury, or fatality is not something to ignore. However, there are people that unwisely ignore such risks. While it is convenient to assume politicians can guarantee that everyone will be forced to be responsible, that is not reality. There are those that simply ignore such laws, and others that are large enough to gain political influence and avoid compliance.

In general, industry likes government taking the responsibility for workplace safety. It presents a barrier to entry for competitors and helps delflect blame.

No system is going to be perfect. Voters need to be skeptical of politicians that claim their laws will yield utopia. I suggest the best approach is to hold people responsible for the damage they do and for the insurance industry to take the lead in safety compliance. For a more detailed account of research on this subject, I recommend http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n4/v14n4-6.pdf as a start.

In closing, engineers have an important role in designing processes, procedures, and workplace environments that lower risks and costs, making there employer safer and more profitable.

I'm skeptical of this notion often bandied about that private companies can & will police themselves.

were that true you wouldn't have FDA, USDA, EPA, OSHA, workmens comp & all the other ones I haven't mentioned, if the free market had been able to regulate themselves

These agencies didn't appear out of thin air on a whim, each & every one are addressing deficiencies in the systems they regulate.

Enlightened Anarchy is a wonderful ideal, unfortunately there are few successful practical modern examples

Nobody likes the idea of regulation until I offer to barbeque them up a steak from that dead cow in my field.

All three of my children are alive and living well adjusted lives. When they did something dangerous as a child, they got a "swat" across the lower back of the legs and a stern warning of what might have happened. If they did something wrong, THEY had to make things right. Clean up, apologize, make amends, etc. etc. etc. Many parents don't take "responsibility" for their children's upbringing and then protect them when they do something wrong. Or blame others. When these children grow up and become young adults they are not taking responsibility for themselves and either do stupid things or join with others who do "whatever they please" without thinking of the consequences. Too many of these thinkers become recipients of the Darwin Award or end up on the wrong side of the law.
As my children got older they had already learned how to make sound decisions. When my son approached me and told me he wanted to buy his first motorcycle, I was all for it, but he had to agree to let me teach him how to control his bike before he could even leave our property with it. When he did, we rode together and I taught him all the finer points of motorcycle safety and handling. He eventually took a rider safety course and upon his completion he told me "Except for being able to lay the bikes down and feel confident with that, You should have been the instructor. You taught me better than they ever could have." I told him he was my vested interest in teaching him correctly and they were trying to teach a much larger class. All in all he makes sound decisions as all my children. Why? Because he was taught to weigh out the pros and cons and make his own mind up. Too many people today cannot do that or disregard Facts to the contrary. Maybe thats why all these safety rules and laws are being forced on the general public. Darwin had one theory. Lawyers and politicians have others.

Me. I will never regret spanking my child, they learned there was a penalty for doing wrong. When words would suffice, that was okay too. There is a difference between a swat on the ass and the breaking of bones. No child should ever suffer "pain" but a little humiliation works wonders. What we need are good Darwinian Lawyers and Judges.

Jefferson said "The tree of Liberty must be occasionally refreshed with the blood of Patriots .... and Tyrants." In my opinion much of the regulations have become tyrannical.

Over 90% of the federal laws on the books today are ILLEGAL. They directly usurp the states and individual rights.

And last but not least: We can not legislate MORALITY. Nor can we legislate intelligence.

Dragon

The new engineer: the Social Engineer.

New?

Not new, I guess. More... influential in modern political (beauricratic) schemes.

The mental midgets who populate the Arizona state legislature recently passed a law legalizing some types of fireworks. Never mind that aside from someone making money on the selling of same and some of that money invariable finds its way into the pockets of said mental midgets, most cities have banned their use.

So, it's OK to sell them, but just don't try to light them. The politicians will still get their bribes, but poor Joe-6-pack will get fined if he lights up.

That's insane.........politicians run amok!

I remember a Philip K. Dick novel, set in the near future, in which all police officers were equipped with scanners that would instantly provide readouts of the prescription drugs in a person's body. If the readout showed that the person was not taking the prescribed drugs as required and indicated in their medical file (also instantly accessed by the police), then that person would be immediately arrested. This is where we are heading.

Garthh is right, and I don't think anyone would disagree that some regulation is needed. Companies and corporations have proven that they won't completely police themselves, the profit motive is too high for that to be possible all of the time.

However, laws and regulations have turned the corner, and are usurping individual rights and freedom in the name of safety and the greater good. In the US, California has led the way in creating a massive government bureaucracy that has been put in place for the good of the people. They have also proven that this is unsustainable. It's no longer a question of if CA will need a federal bailout, but when. This will be financed by the Chinese............if we don't lose our credit rating, which could be soon.

As far as corporate America, it's easy to say that the greedy companies off shored our jobs so the few at the top could make fat profits. But that's not accurate. In many cases laws and regulations imposed by government forced these changes. When rules, (safety or otherwise), are imposed on a US company and no other company on the planet has to adhere to those rules, the US company can no longer compete. Why buy a widget from Indiana for $5, when you can get one that's almost as good for $1.50 that's been imported from China, or wherever. US companies are forced into a decision to either off shore production or close.

Here in the US, (when I say US, I think I can include Canada, the UK, and Australia, probably more as well), the blanket of laws that are designed for our safety are ever expanding, and now include our emotions and our overall health. We have "hate" laws, that carry a stiffer penalty, anti bullying laws, etc., etc. All being passed under the guise of, "If we can prevent one persons feelings from being hurt, then this is a good law."

The healthy food initiative just got passed because kids are too fat. We are going to spend $400,000,000 to put salad bars in schools, and that's just the start. Fresh, perishable, fruits and vegetables will be trucked to schools to get our kids healthier, 90% of which will go in the dumpster. My mother used to pack my lunch. It was healthy, peanut butter and jelly sandwich along with a bag of celery or carrot sticks. I chucked the celery and carrots in the trash every single day.

In the name of not hurting people's feelings or looking discriminatory, we've got the federal government suing Arizona for enforcing federal laws that are already on the books. Where does it stop?

Here in North Carolina, and across the nation, in the name of safety, we have random DUI check points, (these are set up for our own safety to make sure people aren't drinking and driving). I quit drinking and driving years ago, but when I hit one of these I come close to going to jail every time. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm not breaking any laws, the cops have absolutely no right to stop me, question me and check my papers to make sure I'm in compliance. I fly into a freaking rage every time!!!!!

There are a few of us left that don't think that the Constitution is an old relic that needs to be replaced. I'm one of them.

We need laws and regulations, but if any of them come close to trampling individual freedom, of legal US citizens, it has gone too far.

Eventually we will become so safe, that we will no longer be a viable player in the world.

At the risk of being annoying;

"We need laws and regulations, but if any of them come close to trampling individual freedom, of legal US citizens, it has gone too far."

It can be argued all laws trample on personal freedom.

I think the distinction here is whether a law is A. to protect others from you - OR - B. to protect you from yourself

I think The Freedom Issue is limited to the latter.

Perhaps examining a law on 'is it A or B?', may a good 'first step' ^{_{(an maybe help keep you out of the slammer)}}

You're right, that got longer than I wanted it to, just wanted to get it wrapped up so I could have a drink. Plus I got myself worked up thinking about the DUI check points. Man, those things piss me off to no end!

It's fine to stop me at random and check my drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, but somehow it's encroaching if they ask someone with none of the above, if the are in the country legally.

Hell, I'd be safer if I got Mexican citizenship and then snuck back over here, they'd leave me the hell alone!

As I said before, it's sloganeering if it is not qualified by limits.

On freedoms, it is a little more complicated. A law to protect us from predatory banks for example, infringes on their freedom to feast on our carcases. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but...

The predatory lending is an interesting story. Some banks were very guilty to be sure.

But...............a lot of that was touched off by the federal government, again, for the greater good, by deciding that people that couldn't afford houses should be able to have them and forcing lenders to give loans to people that couldn't pay them back.

The government created the housing bubble and is largely responsible for the current recession.

More reading: Just to be fair, this site was all for it. Big government intervention, and best of all, it wasn't going to cost anything! That worked out well.

http://www.realtown.com/mjadamssellshomes/blog/soap-box/the-national-affordable-housing-act-passes

I agree with most everything you say here. But, stating that, " forcing lenders to give loans to people that couldn't pay them back." may be a reach. I'd give you "allowing".

The problem I have is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac administrators, and finally the banks themselves, couldn't loose money, no matter how upside down the market got. That's not right. They incurred NO RISK.

I'm just jealous I guess.

This is a good article from the Wall Street Journal. It is an op. ed., but based on fact. They say "forced" too, but a more appropriate term would probably be, "Strongly Encouraged", with the inference that there would be problems for those that did not go along.

How's that?

No disagreement, I was thinking of the fees and such since deregulation, a fee for using an ATM, a fee for not using an ATM, a fee for paying online except direct deposit, etc. etc. Incredible fees for being late, or overdrawn, even a fee for actually using the overdraft "protection" you pay for each month.

It pays to shop around, there are still banks around with very few, if any fees.

When it comes to banks I'm in a Union [gasp]

Credit union :D

best of all they won't be bought out by BofA or some other evil mega bank

Yeah-but it fits in "A" along with disappointed cereal killers.

To fit in "B" it has to be a law saying you can't choose to go to a "predatory bank".

Laws in "B" are ones that 'substitute for an education failure'

Like helmet laws; where you have to be truly "uneducated" to not choose to wear one.

And I dread to think what is going to happen when a state legalizes fireworks after a generation has passed having no 'education due to banning'.

Good answer. It has been said that anyone who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will gain neither and lose both. (Badly quoted, but I think I got the gist of it) I grew up in Manitoba where they have zero helmet laws for motorcycles. None of the cool kids would wear helmets. Then I read that some places (British Columbia, California) were starving for viable organs for donation, and on those years where there was a real deficit, they removed the helmet laws from the books.

Originally it seems pretty cold blooded, but my Dad just chuckled and pointed out that society as a group does not EVER care about the individual. Will use him up with taxes, and in this case, even his organs! And he pointed out that nothing was stopping me from looking at the stats and actually wearing a helmet. Took a couple of years for that to sink in. Then I was watching a documentary about the XXXXXX cigarette advertising spokesman man who died from lung cancer. We saw his face every day on a billboard, astride a horse, looking into the sun set, lighting up a smoke. Must have been a PR nightmare when he died from it. And again, it took a couple of years for the message to sink in. I don't think you can rush this. It might take a few years, but look at the excellent work done by MADD to reduce the incidence of drunk driving! The breathalyzer laws failed to do anything! It was a public information campaign over a dozen years which worked!

Do we need laws to protect us from ourselves. Actually, no. We don't. They are annoying and they don't work.... Prohibition was an abject failure, as is the present "war on drugs". But sometimes we need to pay somebody to check the quality of our meat, make sure there is no asbestos in our drywall, lead in our kids toys, and be responsible if they try to injure or poison our kids. This might not need laws, but it certainly does need regulations. I think we all agree on this as a fundamental thing....but the problem is where do we draw the line. I suspect, know you draw the line in a different place than I do. I like raw milk. Perhaps you prefer to have your milk pasturized. Raw milk used to spread TB. The wide spread use of pasturized milk cut the spread of a lot of diseases, TB only the most predominant. (On the farm we noticed that about an hour after drinking a glass of the "funny tasting" raw milk, the city boy was in the bathroom spewing from both ends. We thought this was really funny at the time.) Now, no milk can be sold unless it is pasturized. Is this really a good thing? I lean towards no. You maybe lean towards Yes. How about trinkets that are made from pure lead which are meant for kids to play with?

hmmm.

Perhaps those rules and regulations might not be such a bad thing after all.

Just my 2 cents worth.

How interesting. I thought I had signed in...that "guest" comment was me....

Grin!

I just have to wonder if the people in power are ever going to get real.

During campaigns all we hear about, from both parties, is transparency, cutting spending, stream lining government, job creation etc..............

Once they get elected, the most important issues become things like; forcing the fast food industry to use healthier oil to make french fries, (which made them worse by the way, no crunch).

Congressional hearings on whether or not some stupid baseball player used steroids during his career.

Childhood obesity

Reducing salt intake

Imposing new taxes and rules on evil smokers and drinkers

Open gays in the military (Ask the men and women that are in the field putting their lives on the line, whatever they say, goes.........Duh!)

Are corporate CEO's making too much money

None of this stuff means a rat's ass to me.........and it all costs money.

They all need to either do the job we sent them there for or stay home!

Two laws that erk me are

1. Mandatory helmet laws, and

2. Mandatory seat belt laws.

I do not ride bikes so 1 is a null set, and I first started using seat belts when I first got a car that had them. Seatbelt laws had not yet been imagined.

I figure if damned fools are not FORCED to do these things, it should help the gene pool.

I do not need laws which protect ME from myself.

Bill

Bill,

If you worked for an insurance company, you'd have a different opinion.

How do you feel about the part that requires that children wear seat belts? How do you feel about the part that requires babies to be in carseats?

People still get caught with the children loose in the car.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Responsible parents will take every measure at their disposal to protect their kids and keep them safe, irresponsible parents don't care.

No nanny laws needed.

You've used that argument before, but it doesn't wash. Think not of the irresponsible parent, but of the child of the irresponsible parent. Some otherwise irresponsible parents do respond to the law. The law promotes sensible behavior and therefor is not onerous, and if it saves one child, it is worth it.

You have used a sort of circular argument. You say, if people want improvements, they will happen. That is true...sometimes. Many times, the improvement only becomes known when the law requires it. The auto manufacturers fought tooth and nail to avoid many of the safety improvements in automobiles.

Sometimes the chicken starts the sequence, sometimes it's the egg.

The insurance companies can require rules 1 and 2 to be followed, otherwise the policy is null and void. Yes I know... this opens even more cans of worms.

Bill

WEAR SEATBELTS!! YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!

The only insurance company that's going to care about helmets or seatbelts is a life or health insurance company.

I'd still be more comfortable with an insurance rule as part of a policy than a government law that must be obeyed by all. With insurance, those that choose not to wear a helmet would pay a higher premium.........just that simple.

what about the law that requires cars have seatbelts?

would any cars [except Volvo's] have seatbelts, without a law?

center brake lights, air bags, safetyglass, collapsible steering colums, padded dashboards?

probably not, as it would raise the cost

the cost per unit would take a very long time [if ever] to drop to the point of wide spread implementation & use

In my inbox Saturday, December 18th, 2010.

BATFE Requests "Emergency" <http://www.nramedia.org/t/20535/6055680/1156/0/> Authority To Track Semi-Automatic Rifle Sales <http://www.nramedia.org/t/20535/6055680/1156/0/>

Of course, it's NRA. But do you want to bet against the truth of it, in today's political climate?

I don't. I live in the "Shadow of the US Capitol", about 25 miles from Ground Zero, Washington, DC, and I've seen the shenanigans the Federal Agencies get up to too many times in 31 years to discount this. Yep, I believe it's true. And yep, I believe it could happen, in just 3 more weeks. And if it does, it will not be the Camel's nose under the tent flap. It will be but the precursor to the whole herd of camels.

They never, ever, ever, give up.

Gee, I never saw that one one the nightly news.

I'm not real smart, but that looks to me like a thinly veiled attempt to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding US citizens, that may want to arm themselves to protect their families from the ruthless cartels and the violence that is spilling over the border.................While at the same time, not lifting a finger to stop it.

A cult need not answer to statistical scrutiny. It need not subject its own internal beliefs to outside review because everyone inside the cult already agrees on the answer -- and why ask questions when we already know the truth, right?

Consensus is not always fact. More often than not, it is merely the mass infection of many minds with official foolishness.

I have a good friend that has been retired from highway patrol for many years. It was, and I'm sure still is, a common practice, for cops to carry an untraceable weapon with them, just in case they needed it to prove self defense if they killed an unarmed person.

The power structure starts at the top, and goes straight down to local law enforcement. We must be kept in line, even if an occasional mistake is made.

Gun laws are a red herring...designed to spark incredible emotions all out of proportion to their statistical significance. The reality is that it is not that big a deal.

When I was watching a reality Cop TV show, the detective was investigating a burning car which had a bullet ridden body inside. He got a call and a worried look crossed his face. He turned to the camera and said "There's another burning car across town. It is probably related. I have never had a case of two burning cars in the same night that wasn't related!". I just about fell off my chair! You mean you have had others!!!! OMFG!!!! What is this, Beiruit? No actually, it was Dallas.

The strident and polarized nature of US politics and political issues such as gun control prevents any reasonable discussion on the merits of any measures anyone plans to put into place. It is usually a matter of what I call the "culture of fear". The culture of fear has made most of the issues brought up on this thread useless...both sides are saying "don't confuse me with the facts".

Ah well. The real assault this particular day is the assault on freedom of the press and freedom of speech because this Assange guy is publishing stuff that embarasses our servants. Takes the spotlight off the economic depression.

I thought Moore was spot on as he described the "Culture of Fear" which permeates the US psyche. And until this culture of fear is addressed, and solved, you will get episodes which result in the creation of the Nanny State.

Alright then, let's talk facts.

Speed limits are a good idea right? Think about the lives saved. Why, if it weren't for speed limits we'd have dead and mutilated bodies strewn from one end of the US to the other.

Speed limits were implemented to provide for our safety, it was a good idea, so no one complained...........let's give control over how fast we drive to the government.

Next the government decides that we are burning too much gas..........once we've handed them control, they can do whatever the hell they want........So, they decide that all of us now must drive no faster than 55mph, and it doesn't have a damned thing to do with safety. We must drive 55 now, because they say so!!!!

It's been reversed, but, it accomplished nothing and cost the tax payers millions of dollars to implement. Anyone that thinks that the people in government only pass laws to keep us safe and out of danger, and that they only do it because they care, are dangerously naive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Living in the Shadow of the Supremes (Just outside Washington, DC, USA) as I have for the last 30 years, I have many friends who work for the Offices of Congress (that includes the folks who maintain the buildings and infrastructure, and none of them are elected. Come to think of it, I don't think I HAVE any elected friends).

One of my friends, who has worked on the Hill (what we call the buildings and property of congress) for a dozen or more years pointed out to me once that one of the biggest reasons we have so many useless laws (and, by extension of this same logic, so many harmful laws. Harmful of our liberties, our rights, our freedoms, etc., but seldom harmful to criminals, who just ignore them, anyway) is because the only thing necessary to get a Congressperson to pass ANY law is to show them how the passage of the law will protect them from the POLITICAL consequences of something, even if its unrelated to the law (Sort of the political version of do it my way and you won't get hurt). Conversely, the reason so many outmoded and useless, as well as still dangerous, laws (mostly its the old, outmoded, useless stuff that is used to provide a rationale and even a political RIGHT to make the new laws we despise most) is because it is infinitely harder to convince a Congressperson that the continued existence of an onerous law is dangerous to him or her, while its easy to convince them that the lack of the law is dangerous.

Our last election went a long way to convince many Congresspersons that there is a danger they had long ignored in the electorate. We need to keep them mindful of it.

So what was your point there? That lives were saved by mandating a speed limit law? This was a bad thing? An imposition of some sort on the "right to speed". You said "lets look at facts" and then jump into a fact free emotional rant.

Seriously...I don't get the reason for your vitriol, or to be honest, the point, though I suspect it had something to do with "We gave them an inch, and they took a yard". The government in both our countries is not a dark satanic force, it is "of the people, by the people and for the people" That dark satanic force is "the people". (hmmm...I might be on to something here.) Which people? Well, mostly the ones who were arsed enough to get out and vote.

However, I DID take the trouble to peruse the relevant documents. You are quite right (assuming of course that my understanding of your rant is what I think it is) NONE of the constition, or the Bill of rights for your fair country or my countries Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually suggest that the government has a mandate to be a nanny state. In fact, with some specific exceptions, (your second amendment for instance) they both suggest that any law or regulation may be promulgated or removed by vote. But not your vote, a vote by the people you voted in. If you vote in a nanny, you get a nanny. You can always run for office on the "I am NOT a nanny" platform.

If 9 out of 10 city councillors wanted the city speed limits changed, it would be changed. I have actually seen that. Rural roads especially. Presumably, if 9 out of 10 federal representatives wanted the speed limits removed on the national highways, then the speed limits would be removed.

I don't see the problem with that...it is democracy in action. The downside of democracy is that a whole lot of well meaning fools can pass a regulation which will get you banged up in cell with a chamberpot as your only friend. Oh well. It is, of course, the worst form of government. Except of course for all other forms of government we have ever tried.

I should find the relevant amendments and codicils, but hey, I'll just leave you with this....

Well there are some elements of the US government that may well be part of a dark satanic force, but i guess they could still be for the people as sometimes that may be what the people actually need but don't want to admit it.

It is a rant, and I guess I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across. My attitude doesn't just stem from my belief that nanny laws are at least as much about control as they are about safety, it also stems from the thought that our elected officials seem to be completely ignoring the real issues.

Have you ever seen Gangland?

We've got cartels and gangs spreading across America like cancer, not just the cities, but more and more rural areas too. They're setting up meth labs and destroying lives and towns with impunity. Border patrol and local cops are out gunned, out manned and out spent. The argument is that there just isn't the funding to address these issues. In the meantime, the latest piece of legislation in Washington contains 6000 pork items, amounting to 100's of millions of dollars, that have nothing to do with the bill. Yes, it makes me mad!

We've managed to keep the border secure between North and South Korea for decades, but somehow can't figure out how to do it here. Yes, it makes me mad!

The current administration, on one hand, finds the Constitution irrelevant, while at the same time, is affording Constitutional protection to terrorists and people that are in the country illegally. Yes, it makes me mad!

As RCE pointed out, our concern for human/prisoner rights has created a situation in which our jails and prisons are overpopulated to the point that they have become a revolving door joke. Gangs run things inside and outside the prisons, while at the same time, law enforcement officers, ( I know a couple), are frustrated to the point of apathy. Yes, it makes me mad!

All of this is causing real human suffering and death..........daily. If you want facts, google the statistics, there are plenty.

In the face of all of this, what are our elected officials, that care so much about human life and safety doing?

Well, according to one recent blog, they are hard at work discussing putting a law into effect that would mandate back up cameras for all new vehicles.

YES IT MAKES ME MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully this helps to clarify where I'm coming from.

Well, I can see that it is frustrating to have an elected representative simply go their own way. I blame the bicameral parliament which forces elected representatives to lean towards the party line. But thats Federal. Not much you can do about that except create a vocal voting bloc and "vote the bums out". (Ever wonder how a catholic president ever got voted in? Its worth researching to find out the true power of the gangs.) Or an effective lobby group to force him or her to vote the way YOU want. Even your founding fathers (specifically Washington and Madison) warned about the dangers of the party system.

My country is much the same...the feds fritter away huge amounts of money on decorative projects, taxpayers bitch about it, and the real work gets done at a lower, more grass roots level. Voter turnout at the polls at the municipal level is still very low...yet it is the most important level of government of all. I worked as a DRO at the last election, and was amazed at the turn out...over 60%. Amazing what an unpopular mayor can do!

And I think it might be helpful to remember the difference between a law and a regulation. Laws are subject to constitutional overview, regulations are the day to day things that govern our activities. Our biggest problem is that we elect LAWmakers to deal with regulations, and then complain when they do their job and MAKE LAWS! Oh my! Again, the big exception is your second amendment, which appears in no other country in the world. But it would be disingenuous to apply the criteria you would apply for a regulation to a constitutional law. Speed limits, no matter how onerous, are a "regulation", whereas gun ownership would be a "law". Milk pasturization would be a "regulation", whereas Julian Assange's wikileaks are protected under first amendment law. Laws, of course, can be changed, (13th amendment for instance) but regulations can be tweaked, changed, added or deleted with relative ease by elected representatives. Not by God...grin!

Anyway, we already know all this....I am just rambling on. I think I shall withdraw from this thread because I don't think it is contributing anything to anybody...Political arguements are like arguing with a pig. Everybody gets dirty and the pig seems to enjoy it!

Merry Christmas to all the members of CR4. And may your God go with you.

Just being picky, but speed limits are laws.

I enjoy a little healthy debate.........I was never mad at you.

This thread, I think, has served it's purpose and provided some insight on the general feeling toward nanny laws. Not necessarily a bad thread, but like all others, it has pretty much played itself out.

Thanks for your contributions everyone, and have a great holiday season...............And for God's sake...Be Safe, whatever you do.

Don't you think that pulling the plug could cause hurt to anything down the line?