| Author |
Topic:
The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
3/4 8:21pm
Subject:
The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
- Date Edited:
3/4 8:25pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
darthdrago
|
The last few years, people have been throwing the term "nanny state" around a lot--government regulation that appears to encroach into our personal lives.
Granted, different people will have different definitions as to what's considered "nannyish" over-regulation.
Some of the areas where this argument has flared up: smoking prohibitions, motorcycle helmet laws, cities banning trans-fat usage in restaurants, consensual sex laws, etc.
Of course, the "pro-" side to govt regulation argues that it's done to serve the public good (again, this has diffrent definitions depending on whom you ask).
So where do you draw the line? When does state regulation cross the line and become a nanny state instead?
Here is a recent article regarding the on-again, off-again debate about building a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge in SF. Worldwide, the GGB is one of the most "popular" places for people to commit suicide: the side railings are less than 5 feet high.
(The recent documentary The Bridge films several successful suicides. It's amazing/scary how easily the jumpers scale the side rails and make the leap. The GGB is not state-run, and so cost issues have always prevailed over campaigns to build a barrier. Police foot patrols and even civilians themselves frequently find themselves trying to talk a possible jumper off the ledge.)
So, does anybody think that the state (or in this case, the GGB District) has an obligation to build a barrier, or does this lurch into Nanny State territory? Some opponents to the barrier have argued that potential jumpers might just off themselves somewhere else, so it doesn't really matter if they're intent on doing the act. Please note: I'm not putting forth the question of the validity of the individual choice of suicide, but whether the state has an obligation to keep public grounds from becoming feasible for committing the act itself.
Me, I think the GGB District should build the barrier. Each time a jumper makes the leap, in then involves a lot of "cleanup": the Coast Guard has to look for & remove the body, reports have to be filed, surfers & boaters have to be kept away from the area, police have to interview witnesses, etc. It just becomes a nuisance to the greater public just because one person decided to end it all. For that reason alone, I'm for the barrier.
What do you guys think? Is this nannyish?
EDIT: Here's a sign found on the bridge:
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 8:48pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
I think there are couple of issues here: firstly, in a litigious society like the USA (and Australia is fast catching up) where people generally don't ever want to accept responsibility for their actions, it is becoming prudent risk management to create as many obstacles to self harm as possible simply to stave off of negligence and public liability claims.
Secondly, most citizens are income earners and therefore tax payers. The government does not want to see its tax paying citizens die because they will stop paying earning and paying tax - they don't want to see them injured either because there is no doubt a public cost attached to treatment and rehabilitation.
So is it being "nanny-ish" or is it prudent economic management? Personally, I support any law that makes non consensual sex a crime.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
3/4 10:03pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
LostOnHoth posted:
Secondly, most citizens are income earners and therefore tax payers. The government does not want to see its tax paying citizens die because they will stop paying earning and paying tax - they don't want to see them injured either because there is no doubt a public cost attached to treatment and rehabilitation.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as say that government doesn't want to lose its citizens simply because it loses its tax revenue. But I'd suspect that the state would end up spending more in labor costs to "clean up" the individual's actions than it stood to gain in tax revenue from that individual's income taxes (and any other taxes). In the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, I see it as a case where it's wasteful for the GGB District, multiple police agencies, and even the Coast Guard all have to get involved because of a jumper.
The GGB has periodically come up as a potential terrorist target; the California National Guard was tasked with providing extra security for quite a while before the threat was "downgraded". There were debates on whether it was worth the money to have the NG stay there, when the Guard was being stretched with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. If the barrier was built, it would free up the police agencies, Coast Guard, and anybody else to devote more time to conventional law enforcement and/or providing added security to the area. It's just question of where the funds for these personnel is better spent.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4 10:27pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
LostOnHoth posted:
So is it being "nanny-ish" or is it prudent economic management? Personally, I support any law that makes non consensual sex a crime.
I'm going out on a limb, but I think it had to do with the age for consent rather than laws against non consensual sex.
My view in nanny state is, generally, when the government is making decisions that people should be making for themselves. I generally think that gov't's main purpose is just to protect people from the acts of others, not from the acts of themselves.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 10:38pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
I'm going out on a limb, but I think it had to do with the age for consent rather than laws against non consensual sex.
Ah yes, of course.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
3/4 11:49pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
Both, really.
I think they should have no obligation to do build the barrier, but for reasons others have noted, it might be smart. If people who commit suicide do it somewhere else, then that district doesn't have to deal with as much of the related costs. Since decriminalizing suicide is not feasible, and people have a tendency to try to talk others out of it instead of letting other adults do what they want with their own lives, making it more difficult for people to pick that particular location for offing themselves could be cheaper in the long run.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/5 7:30am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
In general post-9/11 homeland security and the war on terror is the world's most bloated example of nanny state policy. Overzealous efforts to make us safe at the cost of freedom and privacy. Overburdening taxpayers with unwinnable wars that nominally are being fought to protect us from terrorists if not in fact.
Bush is a nanny state radical in this regard, not a conservative. It's not conservative to spend twice what you're taking in without any regard to cost-benefit analysis.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/5 8:06am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Bush is a nanny state radical in this regard, not a conservative. It's not conservative to spend twice what you're taking in without any regard to cost-benefit analysis.
Really? I've been paying attention to politics since 2000 and all I've seen is overspending and an increase in the size of government. 
-----signature-----
Lord Sithis, Dark Lord of Entropy  Senator of the Disciples of Lady Lumiya and Lord Shadowspawn Avatar: Of Fire and Lightning: http://boards.theforce.net/non_star_wars_fan_fiction/b10808/28930140/p1/?5 Obama/Biden '08 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
3/5 8:15am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
I don't think the state has an obligation to put up barriers but if a lot of people are jumping, then it might just be the smart thing to do since the jumpers will end up costing taxpayers when someone has to fish them out of the river, etc. Could the barriers also possibly be helpful the case of an accident in preventing a car from going over?
I would see this as an efficient cost-reducing plan and something for the general safety of the populace. In my mind, nanny laws cross the line between a reasonable accomodation for the general safety and welfare into the realm of regulating behavior. The way the "obesity epidemic" hype is going, trans-fats might be the first in a long line of behavior regulating laws.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/5 8:17am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
|
Exactly. The Republicans have been in charge for most of that time. Bush is the most extravagant big government spender of our age.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
3/5 8:21am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
- Date Edited:
3/5 8:22am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
king_alvarez
|
I don't really see the concept of building a barrier as being nanny-ish. After all, you can still commit suicide if you really want to, just not in that location, so the government isn't really stopping you from doing something.
The other laws in the example in the OP, where they are limiting your ability to make certain decisions, would fall under my definition of a nanny state.
I think it's perfectly fine for the gov to try to protect its citizens, sometimes even from themselves, as long as they don't ultimately prevent you from making the decision.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/5 8:39am
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
I think there's definitely a difference between protecting people and trying to prevent them from imposing costs on society.
What's the cost to taxpayers of fishing a suicide out of the bay? Perhaps there's a cost-benefit analysis here. If the cost of erecting barriers is higher than the cost of corpse fishing over the useful life of the barrier, then the barrier should not be erected.
Motorcycle helmet laws are another good example. Why should I have to pay for cleaning someone's brains off the street if they're too stupid to wear a helmet?
With children things are a bit different. Some parents are literally too stupid to put their small children into car seats. Kids already suffer enough for the stupidity of their parents. Laws requiring car seats and primary education and immunization and gun locks/gun safes are a good thing. When the government can step in in a cost-effective way to preempt parental neglect from becoming a tragedy, it's hard to argue against it.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
3/5 6:28pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
- Date Edited:
3/5 6:29pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
darthdrago
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
What's the cost to taxpayers of fishing a suicide out of the bay? Perhaps there's a cost-benefit analysis here. If the cost of erecting barriers is higher than the cost of corpse fishing over the useful life of the barrier, then the barrier should not be erected.
I haven't been able to find any figures detailing the combined labor costs of the "cleanup", unless the research whiz kids like Diz & Kimball know better search criteria. But the NYT posted an article in 2006 with then-estimates of the barrier costs:
The bridge district is projecting a $70 million shortfall over the next five years. In recent years, the board has raised fares and tolls, cut bus service and staff, and considered other solutions, including corporate sponsorship.
The cost of a barrier is estimated at $15 million to $25 million, money that barrier opponents say could be better spent elsewhere. Even if the board approved a barrier, Ms. [Celia] Kupersmith [General Manager & CEO of the GGB] said, “We don’t know where the money will come for this.”
So there's half of the puzzle. You'd need to estimate the man-hours & wages paid in cleanup against that $15 to $25 million estimate. And as we all know, these kinds of things rarely come in on- or under-budget.
But I still think it's worth it, just to avoid the egg that appears on the District & City of SF's faces whenever the jump statistics are made public. There's also another thing to consider: in this age of instant video-hosting sites like YouTube, etc., I'd hate to see the GGB or any other landmark become a hotspot for ethics-challenged people to deliberately try and capture amateur footage of jumpers making their attempts, like it was a TMZ of snuff footage or something. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/5 9:30pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
- Date Edited:
3/5 9:33pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Obviously, you can't suicide-proof everything, but there's an argument for having a go at the most popular spots. Last week in Chicago an ad agency executive jumped off the top of the Fairmont hotel (He was known for creating the "I'm Lovin It" campaign for McDonald's and the "Dude, You're Getting a Dell" campaign. Perhaps he took stock of the number of cheesburgers he had sold, not to make light of his personal tragedy.).
If it was my nanny state, I'd look for some kind of way to intervene earlier in the process, you know, before they climb out on the ledge. Of course, you can't monitor everyone for suicidal tendencies, or at least it would be a lot more expensive than erecting a suicide barrier on one bridge. Maybe the state could pass that job on to someone else, hand out brochures or something "how to monitor the people you know for suicidal tendencies." Or something.
Maybe suicide is something we should be encouraging among advertising executives. Just a thought. It's getting late.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Maestro
Registered:
Jan '05
|
Date Posted:
3/6 4:06pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
Lord_Vivec posted:
Jabbadabbado posted:
Bush is a nanny state radical in this regard, not a conservative. It's not conservative to spend twice what you're taking in without any regard to cost-benefit analysis.
Really? I've been paying attention to politics since 2000 and all I've seen is overspending and an increase in the size of government.
I take it your a moderate conservative. 
-----signature-----
Where just her to glamorize you for your endless sleep!
You might as well look fetching when your six feet deep!
IN DEFENSE OF STAR WARS!! DIE BASHERS DIE!!!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/6 4:18pm
Subject:
RE: The "Nanny State": where do you draw the line?
|
Darth_Maestro posted:
Lord_Vivec posted:
Jabbadabbado posted:
Bush is a nanny state radical in this regard, not a conservative. It's not conservative to spend twice what you're taking in without any regard to cost-benefit analysis.
Really? I've been paying attention to politics since 2000 and all I've seen is overspending and an increase in the size of government.
I take it your a moderate conservative.
I've actually been described as a liberal liberal.
-----signature-----
Lord Sithis, Dark Lord of Entropy Senator of the Disciples of Lady Lumiya and Lord Shadowspawn Avatar: Of Fire and Lightning: http://boards.theforce.net/non_star_wars_fan_fiction/b10808/28930140/p1/?5 Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
