The Nanny State

[white_goodman]

What an utter pile of rubbish:frown:.

While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke.
The majority of the population is irresponsible and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.

Good grief... What world do you live in? Have you actually worked with people to learn how they behave on the whole?

CanOz

Banking and finance is probably the msot regulated industry in the world after say the nuclear industry, it isnt the lack of regulations, its the fact that the regulators are bought off/lobbied in bed with the people they are meant to be regulating.

Its amazing society was able to survive without a government to save us from ourselves in the early years of the western industrial societies.

You have the typical attitude that allows for statism (fascism, communism etc). Regarding some of your examples, name me why seat belts should be legislated? Who does it harm if i choose not to wear a seatbelt besides myself?

 

[white_goodman]

I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.

statism ftw in canoz's case,

wonder how much he will be trumpeting when the regulation extends to his social behavior and what he is allowed and not allowed to do

 

[white_goodman]

The Role of Government in a Free Society

 

[McLovin]

If that is so, pretty much any death could result in a manslaughter charge as someone somewhere, it could be purported that some omission of some act resulted in the death.

Not really. The law is not a black and white thing.

 

[CanOz]

I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.

When i think of regulation Calliope, I'm thinking of the differences between Australia and Canada, and the US in regards to finance. From my research on the banking industry in the US, I've become disenchanted with investment banking and the dilution and removal of laws in regards to banking. I certainly do not wish for a totalitarian government, but something more than of flawed US model.

There are tens of dozens of examples where grown men and women willfully broke the law, exploited holes in the law or paid extreme amounts of money to have the law changed, to the detriment of their countrymen and of future generations. While i am certainly happy that i was not part of that, or able to suffer the consequences of their broken political system directly, i sympathize with them and share their disappointment of how the regulators let them down. Canada, under a social government has the best quality banks in world, due to reasonable regulation that forbids the gambling of the people's savings on 'innovative' self interested derivatives.



Cheers,


CanOz

 

[IFocus]

Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.

Yes welcome to the United States of American we talk more yank than English these days and follow their culture very closely!

 

[IFocus]

Without passing judgement on the charges....

Just to remind people the reason for pool fencing is it saves lives lots of lives statistical fact.

For those that say hell to these laws I guess they have never found a child face down or at the bottom of a swimming pool dead.

What are the consequences when this happens likely depends if that child is yours or not and whether a fence would have saved his/her life.

 

[Julia]

Yes Prawn, i embellished a little for effect....

Thus inflaming the discussion unnecessarily.

People on the whole, the majority are ignorant, irresponsible, lazy, inconsiderate, self centered and emotionally unintelligent. They will think about a million other things other than their own and others well being in potentially dangerous situations.

This can only be a reflection of the people with whom you mix. My conclusion about my fellow human beings is on the whole entirely different.

I was a factory manager in my past life

Ah, much is explained. If your experience is in managing factory workers, then that's a whole different world from that which I've experienced and from which I draw my conclusions.
Pretty silly, however, to label all of humanity with the traits of those who are only able to engage in employment in factories.

As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.

Carrot/Stick

That's my last word...enjoy your discussion.

CanOz

Turned out to not be your last word.
White Goodman below has very appropriately responded.

statism ftw in canoz's case,

wonder how much he will be trumpeting when the regulation extends to his social behavior and what he is allowed and not allowed to do

 

[white_goodman]

Without passing judgement on the charges....

Just to remind people the reason for pool fencing is it saves lives lots of lives statistical fact.

For those that say hell to these laws I guess they have never found a child face down or at the bottom of a swimming pool dead.

What are the consequences when this happens likely depends if that child is yours or not and whether a fence would have saved his/her life.

once again you are arguing against a strawman, no-one wants kids face down in a pool, its the principle of the matter/law and how that can be used in other areas...

For example, many people are in favour of the same sex marriage law, I am very much against not due to hating gays or whatever, but because the government should not be legislating peoples personal lives and private contracts... prime example the 'fat tax' what a joke, its an attitude of "i (the champagne elite/govt)know whats best for you, even better than yourself"

 

[white_goodman]

When i think of regulation Calliope, I'm thinking of the differences between Australia and Canada, and the US in regards to finance. From my research on the banking industry in the US, I've become disenchanted with investment banking and the dilution and removal of laws in regards to banking. I certainly do not wish for a totalitarian government, but something more than of flawed US model.

There are tens of dozens of examples where grown men and women willfully broke the law, exploited holes in the law or paid extreme amounts of money to have the law changed, to the detriment of their countrymen and of future generations. While i am certainly happy that i was not part of that, or able to suffer the consequences of their broken political system directly, i sympathize with them and share their disappointment of how the regulators let them down. Canada, under a social government has the best quality banks in world, due to reasonable regulation that forbids the gambling of the people's savings on 'innovative' self interested derivatives.



Cheers,


CanOz

I wouldnt trumpet Canada's banking system too much, yes the banking crisis in the US caused concentrated (sub prime) disasters in housing, but Canada like Australia are levered to the hilt in resi housing and are a bigger house of cards as the funny money is much more systemic..

You say regulators let them down, so your argument is for more regulation? What happens when those regulators let you down even more? Who regulates the regulators? When will people understand regulators are controlled by the people they are meant to be regulating, they are lobbied jsut as easily as politicians. Who in the US writes the pharmaceutical bills/laws etc, its the pharamceutical industry, lobbying money has the greatest return profile of any investment in the world, its close to the inflated % returns as bottled water. How to remove this? Remove the incentive for people to lobby, if pollies and regulators dont have the power there is zero incentive to lobby? What a crazy idea huh!

The best and oldest regulation is if your company fails you go bankrupt and insolvent, you dont get bailed out.. heaven forbid we dont socialise losses these days and try a bit of true capitalism and tie managers (finance) to the fate of the company

 

[Calliope]

CanOZ will love this one. Perhaps we should be careful about criticising the Carbon Tax on this forum.

The Federal Government has backed a major bakery chain's advice to its franchisees to take down Liberal Party placards criticising the carbon tax.

ABC News

Brumby's boss has run into a whole new swathe of Labor regulations i.e. if you blame (or even suggest) a price rise may be due to the Carbon tax, they will get you. Putting a Liberal party placard in your window will also bring the regulators down on you like ton of bricks.

 

[CanOz]

CanOZ will love this one. Perhaps we should be careful about criticising the Carbon Tax on this forum.

ABC News

Brumby's boss has run into a whole new swathe of Labor regulations i.e. if you blame (or even suggest) a price rise may be due to the Carbon tax, they will get you. Putting a Liberal party placard in your window will also bring the regulators down on you like ton of bricks.

B_A_N_K_I_N_G not B_A_K_I_N_G

CanOz

 

[johenmo]

Ah, much is explained. If your experience is in managing factory workers, then that's a whole different world from that which I've experienced and from which I draw my conclusions.

This is not a dig at Julia or CanOz. The above says it all - our experiences shape our views. Through the years I have worked and/or been responsible in factories, building sites, farms, Qango's, small private family company, large multi-national. Have also been involved with community groups dealing with various sections of society, private and Gov't schools, board of a counselling centre. So I have observed and dealt with very rich and very poor - as have many people.

I can honestly say that in all the above people have taken advantage of loopholes in any legislation or codes, whether they be rich or poor, well or poorly educated, etc.. Even if rules and regulations are in place, some will disregard them and do what they want or can get away with. It's the consequences of the actions that often have a big effect e.g. no seatbelt causing injury = medical expenditure plus someone having to clean up the mess; financial skulduggery (a.k.a. theft) resulting in losses to those who can't afford to lose it.

It's the enforcement that makes or breaks any rule. If there were no police but the laws remained on the books society would deteriorate - we see it overseas. The issue is: "to what level" should be regulate/legislate?

Unfortunately people in general have to be saved from themselves - either their stupidity, naivety/innocence , or the temptations, large or small, that come their way that brings out their dark side.

 

[Julia]

I can honestly say that in all the above people have taken advantage of loopholes in any legislation or codes, whether they be rich or poor, well or poorly educated, etc.. Even if rules and regulations are in place, some will disregard them and do what they want or can get away with. It's the consequences of the actions that often have a big effect e.g. no seatbelt causing injury = medical expenditure plus someone having to clean up the mess; financial skulduggery (a.k.a. theft) resulting in losses to those who can't afford to lose it.

That's a fair point. I think, though, that it depends on the regulation. If it makes sense (eg seatbelts) then people will do it without much question.

Some of the recent pool fencing rules, however, are ridiculous. Example: if you build a new house now, you have to have fixed security screens on even the high, small toilet windows. Apparently a toddler can be smart enough and sufficiently co-ordinated to climb up on the toilet, then onto the top of the cistern (good luck balancing there, kid), then understand how to manipulate the flyscreen out of the window, climb up onto the window sill and drop that substantial distance to the ground below. Now if you really think a 2 year old is going to do that, I'd like to meet that kid. This is in addition to having the actual pool fenced, cost of which, btw, for a 7m x 2.5m lap pool is nearly $8000.

I have a pool in the back yard. There is a six foot fence controlling access to the back yard.
There are security screens on all front windows and doors so even if my dog's warning to stay away was insufficient, no one, kid included, is going to break in. Yet I still have to have an additional fence around all egress from the house at the back, effectively fencing my pool off from myself. Just madness.

It's the enforcement that makes or breaks any rule. If there were no police but the laws remained on the books society would deteriorate - we see it overseas.

The issue is: "to what level" should be regulate/legislate?

That's a reasonable question. Do you think the pool fencing rules, as I have described above, are reasonable?

Unfortunately people in general have to be saved from themselves - either their stupidity, naivety/innocence , or the temptations, large or small, that come their way that brings out their dark side.

This is where we disagree. Of course there need to be regulations regarding basic safety, e.g. do not light fires in a drought where there is long grass. Personally, I'd have thought that was so damn obvious you wouldn't need to spell it out, but apparently not.

In a variation of "The Nanny State" there's an excellent article in yesterday's "The Weekend Australian" by Frank Furedi, Prof of Sociology, about the 'disease' of bullying. http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/560/
Extract:

A close inspection of the claims made about bullying indicates that what they refer to are everyday troubles of human existence. Workplace bullying covers a multitude of sins. Virtually any negative, uncivil encounter can be, and is, defiined as bullying. The vast majority of experiences branded as bullying are what used to be called workplace politics. Bullying can mean deliverative destructive and threatening behaviour. But in most instances it refers to the normal tensions and conflicts integral to the life of work.

Unpleasant gesture, flaunting status, unwanted eye contact, ignoring a person's contribution, pulling rank or making jokes at someone's expense are now experienced as bullying In effect experts have redefined elementary forms of unpleasant and insensitive behaviour as bullying.

What the bullying industry has sought is to lower the threshold of acceptable pressure, stress and uncertainty in the workplace. The diagnosing of assertive management styles, plain speaking, undiplomatic behaviour, etc as claims for legal intervention and for financial resources implies adults possess the emotional and moral resources formerly associated with children.

Whatever the alleged costs of bullying, the price society pays for allowing its adults to be infantilised is far higher.

It's along the same lines as the medicalising of ordinary human emotions. It seems every episode of normal sadness following an unhappy event is now classified as depression and requires pharmacological intervention.

I don't know if anyone here can get what I'm on about, but it seems to me that in so many areas, our lives are being interfered with by various people who declare they know what is best for us. Imo it's going to be ultimately counterproductive as we produce a society that has lost the capacity for its members to think for themselves.

 

[Tightwad]

I don't have a problem with fencing pools, in my state its been compulsory as far back as i remember.

The issue is not just about who has access to a backyard, but the pool itself - with the risks being from children who live in the house, are visiting the house etc. who are unattended for whatever reason.

 

[johenmo]

That's a reasonable question. Do you think the pool fencing rules, as I have described above, are reasonable?



This is where we disagree. Of course there need to be regulations regarding basic safety, e.g. do not light fires in a drought where there is long grass. Personally, I'd have thought that was so damn obvious you wouldn't need to spell it out, but apparently not.


It's along the same lines as the medicalising of ordinary human emotions. It seems every episode of normal sadness following an unhappy event is now classified as depression and requires pharmacological intervention.

I don't know if anyone here can get what I'm on about, but it seems to me that in so many areas, our lives are being interfered with by various people who declare they know what is best for us. Imo it's going to be ultimately counterproductive as we produce a society that has lost the capacity for its members to think for themselves.

Pool fencing - a fence around it, separating it from the house - yes. This negates the need for the screens. My Dad had this and it was fine. If the backyard fence forms part of it, great. I understand your setup and that's sufficient to me, but consider the same setup with little kids where they can wander straight from the house to the pool - the child shouldn't pay for the parent's inattention. But the window thing - that's crazy.

As for people needing to be saved from themselves - I used to have your view but changed it. Third party injuries etc are sufficient for me. But again, to what level?? Like CanOz did I work in manufacturing and I have seen people do stupid things, and some of them have University qualifications - so they are "intelligent idiots"!

PC has contributed to our precious society and like the article states about workplace bullying, true bullying and perceived bullying are now one. And so it is with many things. "Girly calendars" are gone - I had QC girls at one place who brought in their own "manly" calendar (at my suggestion). The guys were not amused and seriously claimed they were offended. It made the point and all calendars disappeared.

Julia - I agree with being cautious about over-legislating and (further?) creating a nation of wimps. My faith in humanity to live and work cooperatively is less than yours, I fear..

 

[Julia]

OK, thanks for response, johenmo. I get what you're saying. Just worry that the expectation of idiocy becomes the reality.

 

[white_goodman]

I don't have a problem with fencing pools, in my state its been compulsory as far back as i remember.

The issue is not just about who has access to a backyard, but the pool itself - with the risks being from children who live in the house, are visiting the house etc. who are unattended for whatever reason.

its kind of an insulting attitude, who cares more for children, the government or their parents?

 

[johenmo]

... the expectation of idiocy ...

Julia - I laughed when I read the above. A phrase worthy of remembering.

 

[johenmo]

its kind of an insulting attitude, who cares more for children, the government or their parents?

Why is thinking that a pool should be fenced off within a yard insulting? Only if you take it that way.

Who cares more? Depends on the situation - sometimes it IS the Govt.

Loving parents have taken their eye of the kids for a few moments, only to lose them. White - do you have kids?