The conundrum of the nanny state

As kids our parents made decisions for us for our own good, and we do the same for our kids.  It's a good thing too, because, lacking good parental support, kids are known to do some stupid things, like playing with matches in a closet. Yet there are some people who think they are so good at playing the role of parent that they should decide what is best for everyone.  They are called progressives.  

Usually these are people who live pretty comfortable lives with little to no stress.  Since they've managed to make it through life without unhealthy food, alcohol and cigarettes, they think we should live just like they do, and so they push lawmakers to pass laws that discourage their use, such as excise taxes or sin taxes or bans.  

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg successfully championed for laws banning smoking in commercial establishments like bars and restaurants, smoking in public places, sales of flavored tobacco products, smoking e-cigarettes in public, regulating sodium levels in processed food, trans fats in restaurants, loud headphones, sodas larger than 16 ounces, commercial music over 45 decibels, chain restaurant menus without calorie counts, and cell phones in schools.  

Now, I understand why all these things that he regulated might be bad for us,and why such laws might be good, although each one of them takes a way a personal liberty.  Taking that a step further, each of these laws assumes that most people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is healthy or not healthy, so these progressives have to decide for us.  They have to play the role of parent, thus turning our nation into what many refer to as a nanny state.  

The most recent such effort comes from Westminster, Massachusetts, a town of 7,700 residents, where the board of health is trying to ban the sale of any tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco.  If successful, Westminster would become the first town to make illegal the sale of tobacco products.  

The Associated Press explains the objective of such a ban. 

Town health agent Elizabeth Swedberg said a ban seemed like a sensible solution to a vexing problem.

"The tobacco companies are really promoting products to hook young people," she said, pointing to 69-cent bubblegum-flavored cigars, electronic cigarettes and a new form of dissolvable smokeless tobacco that resembles Tic Tac candies. "The board was getting frustrated trying to keep up with this."

Citing a report from the U.S. surgeon general, Swedberg said that if tobacco use continues unabated, 5.6 million American children who are younger than 18 today will die prematurely because of smoking. Change, she said, "has to start somewhere."

Certainly we can understand this concern, but such a ban would take away this option for adults who choose to sell and purchase such products. One store owner said that tobacco products make up five percent of his sales.  Rational adults choose to purchase such products for their own consumption.

So whether it's banning the sale of tobacco products, or limiting the size of pop you can buy, or forcing you to read the calorie counts of the foods you intend on eating at a restaurant, it's always for our own good.  These progressives think they know what's best for us.

Surely as parents we try to encourage our children to make wise choices, and while they are young enough and impressionable enough we might force limit, or eliminate altogether, unhealthy options. The problem, though, is that most Americans are not children.  Most Americans are hard working people who have to deal with stress, and stress is deserving of something that might take away that stress, such as alcohol, high calorie foods, tobacco products, and looking at fun foods without being forced to read the calories.

Back in the 1980s Nancy Reagan put together a very successful campaign to get kids to say no to drugs. That's the kind of thing our leaders should do rather than making decisions "for our own good" that force us to do things their way.  

They say they are doing it for our own good, but do you want to know the real reason progressives are forcing us to live healthier?  It's because their ultimate goal is to have a universal healthcare system, and if you are unhealthy you will cost too much.  So the ultimate goal is to limit the cost of your health.

They started out big by passing prohibition back in 1919, but it resulted in a public outcry and prohibition was repealed in 1933, with the war giving progressives an easy out.  It failed because most people reject their agenda.

So they learned they couldn't get everything they wanted in one swell step, and so they have been taking baby steps ever since, and they have been gradually succeeded, where they have managed to obtain majorities, to push for their agenda one law at a time.

Such progressives who are leading this charge must live very stress free lives, which might explain why they have so much time on their hands.  The rest of us are having to work for a living and have to deal with stress every day of our lives.  We are the ones who need some of these unhealthy choices to take the edge off life once in a while.  Sure some of us over do it, but that's our choice; that's our liberty.

And, of course, the reason they are succeeding at gradually pushing forth their agenda is that the rest of us are too busy working to make any effort to stop them.  Pretty soon our nation is going to be at a state where police officers are pointing guns at adults who purchase simple, harmless, things such as a six ounce soda pop.

Progressives are correct in that there are very unhealthy habits of Americans.  They are right that we should do what is in our power to educate people how to live a healthy lifestyle.  Yet the effort should not involve laws that take away individual liberties.

Kids who eat chicken legs aggressive, says study

So there are lawmakers who are trying to push for a perfect society.  So one of the ways the accomplish their idealistic goal is to make laws forcing us to make safe choices.  So every time a new study comes out they start salivating.

It was this kind of stuff that we had to deal with the entire term of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  He banned smoking in public based on studies, he banned large pops based on studies linking high carbohydrate diets to diabetes, he tried to make a law banning salt in restaurants because salt was believed to cause high blood pressure, and he assaulted McDonalds because the theory was that high fat foods alone caused heart disease.

Of course, when studies come out disproving their theories they simply ignore them.  That's the hypocrisy of it all. When studies come out to prove something is bad for you, they can't wait to pass a law taking away our personal liberties.  Yet when a study proved genetics and not high fat foods cause hardened arteries, they ignore it.  When a study proved salt has nothing to do with high blood pressure they ignore it.  That's hypocrisy.

So the latest Cornell University study done shows that kids who eat chicken legs to the bone are more likely to be aggressive and disobey adults.  So I wonder how long it will be before some lawmaker forces parents to make their kids use a knife and fork to eat their chicken.

Of course that poses a problem too.  These same people want to take guns away from people because guns kill.  So here they want to take the chicken legs out of the hands of children and give them knives.  I suppose they could ban knives too.

Why would someone valuable time and money doing a study like this anyway.  It's obvious they have an agenda here.  They want to show that uncivilized eating has consequences, and they want to make sure parents and schools don't allow for it.

What is better? Nanny State or Free State

I have some friends who like progressive people in government like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  They think it's a good idea that laws are made that urge healthy lifestyles.  I, however, think that this form of nanny-style government is dangerous.

Think of it this way.  Think of the government as your home.  Since the parents are paying the bills, they get to set the rules.  They can prevent you from eating foods high in sugar and fat, and they can encourage you to exercise.

Now, once we the people give the government the power to pay our bills, then we are, in essence, making the government the parents.  By default, this gives the government the power to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

So every time a new study comes out showing that something we are eating is bad for us, then these government officials want to make laws preventing people from eating it.  This is what Bloomberg did when he banned the sale of 36 ounce drinks in New York.  

Why did he do it?  The bottom line is the government of New York pays a lot of money for healthcare.  A high cost in healthcare is the cost of caring for diabetic people.  Since pop has a lot of sugar, the idea was the people would drink less pop and ingest less sugar. 

This is the crux of the progressive movement.  They believe that experts in Washington should decide what's best for us. They believe that in the absence of a nanny state in government, people are stupid and will make unwise decisions.  

The problem here is that the these experts assume they are right.  But what if they are wrong.  What if people will simply buy more pop?  What if not drinking pop will still result in diabetes? What if these experts are proven wrong?  

Will they then get rid of the law?  There have been many instances in the past where these so called experts were proven wrong, and this did not stop them from changing their ways.  It has never resulted in the reversal of any laws. 

Whenever someone proves one of these idealist experts wrong, the expert simply trudges forward, even it it takes denying the facts and telling lies.  

Consider that, despite the assault on high fat foods such as McDonalds, Burger King and KFC under the belief that high fat foods cause hardened arteries and heart disease, science has proven that this is a myth.  

Scientists actually found a high rate of hardened arteries and heart disease in ancient Egyptian mummies, and their diet didn't even include meat.  They didn't even have the knowledge to make fried foods.  This has experts wondering if it's not the foods we eat but genetics that causes heart disease. 

Regardless, the experts continue the assault on high fat foods.  And I'm not saying you should eat these foods, I'm just saying that the experts are not always right. They make laws based on "it sounds good" myths, and make laws because "it's for our own good" and they they find out they are wrong, but they deny they are wrong.
A second thought I have on this topic is that for every new law one more liberty, one more freedom, is taken away. You must consider that every law tells me one more thing I must do, or that I cannot do.  It takes away my right to decide? It tramples on my personal liberty.

A third thought I have on this topic is this: Is the government supposed to make a new law every single time a new study comes out?  I mean, what if a study came out showing that long-term ingestion of popcorn caused dementia in the elderly? Are they going to ban the sale of popcorn?  Where does it end?

There is an alternative to the nanny state, and that is to assume people are smart rather than stupid.  I think people are smart, and will make decisions they think are best for them.  When provided with better knowledge, they will make better decisions.  

So, the powers that be should not assume people are stupid, thus making laws forcing them to make wise decisions.  Instead, they should assume that most people are smart, and make a gallant effort to educate them about the advantages of making smart choices.