Govco Nanny State

NannyFrom seatbelt laws to motorcycle helmets to forcing public businesses to ban smoking our precious government is fast becoming our own personal Nanny and I for one am tired of it.  When in the world did it become Govcos right to tell us how to live?  I’ll tell you when…it was when we gave up our personal responsibility and decided to let Govco run our lives since it was much easier that way.  It began when Special Interest Groups took control in Washington.  It began when we became too lazy to even care. 

We live in a great country where we have so much freedom including the freedom to be stupid.  If I choose to not wear a seatbelt, where does that freedom infringe on your freedom?  It doesn’t.  Now, don’t give me the whole “public safety”  or “insurance rates” crap.  First of all, if it was really about public safety, Govco would insist that we all wear helmets while driving as well as not go over 20 mph.  You ever think about that?  Govco says that wearing seatbelts is the law because of safety.  Why then don’t they make you wear a helmet as well?  That would be safe wouldn’t it? Or how about making it really hurt and taking your car away if you don’t wear one?  Also, in regards to the lame excuse of “Well, health insurance rates would go up”, Govco should never be in the business of price controls.  What an insurance company chooses to charge should in no way be affected by Govco.   All it is is just a way for Politicians to look good and to raise money.

The list goes on and on…talking on a cell phone while driving, curbing obesity, shutting down Internet gambling sites, federalizing local issues such as medical marijuana or drinking ages, curbing alcohol consumption, expanding the FCC’s power to include cable TV and Satellite radio, violent video games, etc…..  it all is part of Govo saying they know how to raise our kids and run our lives better then we do.  Actually, to get right down to it, it’s just another form of Socialism.  That would indicate, to many, that it is the Liberals who are mostly behind much of this but sadly the “Conservatives” such as Bush and other GOP leaders are right up there with the other Commies in Washington who think they know how to run our lives better then we do.

Ronald Reagan said it well in that:

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” 

Henry Louis Mencken said it even better:  

“The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.”

Now, I am not saying we could do better with no Govco.  Not at all.  What I am saying is exactly what our founding fathers wanted and that is limited.  A government that serves at the will of the people, not the other way around.   How about a 50 year moratorium on any new laws by Govco telling us how to live or how to raise our kids.


5 Responses to “Govco Nanny State”

  1. Luke D Says:

    Here’s a hypothetical (but very real) seatbelt situation that you should think about. Hospitals see a lot of car crash victims, even in small towns. There are just a lot of crashes. Seatbelts cut down on the severity of injury (this is not debatable), which cuts down on the time specialized doctors must spend with the idiots who are too proud to wear their seatbelts.

    Soooooo, if you don’t wear your seatbelt and have a crash, you will most likely require more time and energy to stabilize and repair (assuming you survive at all), time and energy which our already overworked doctors (talk to a few working the ER if you don’t believe they’re overworked) COULD be spending on repairing your grandfather who just had a heart attack or your little brother who cut a vein while cleaning the gutters.

    No matter where you live, medical attention is a finite commodity. There are only so many health professionals and hours in the day. Your pride and stupidity about seatbelts will cause you more damage in a crash, which will take more time to repair, which may cause someone else to receive less medical attention, which may lead to their death. That sounds to me like something we should legislate.

    If you think I’m being overly dramatic, again I would ask you to spend a few days in the ER waiting room in your town (or talk to an ER doctor). Doctors and nurses are human, and their patients die every day from lack of resources (time, money, equipment, donated blood, knowledge, energy, etc.). Seatbelts save lives by minimizing the resources hospital staff must expend to repair you after a crash. In this way, the life saved by wearing your seatbelt may be more than just your own.

  2. Roland Says:

    Luke, in NO way am I saying people should not wear seatbelts. I wear one every time I get in a car. No matter what. I am just saying that Govco should not be passing laws forcing us to wear them. Laws such as that, which reduce our personal freedom, are not what the founders had in mind and are not part of a free society.
    I could use your argument and point out again how if seatbelts make it so safe, why does Govco not require helmets as well?
    Also, you talk about hospital resources, how about Police resources? Would you rather the Police spend time and money pulling people over for not wearing seatbelts or, the worst violation of the Constitution, setting up these check-points where they use at least 10 officers to stop people and ticket them for not wearing seatbelts (their “click it or ticket” campaings) OR would you rather them be on the job tracking down rapists and murderers? Would you rather them be cruising the road looking for agressive or DUI drivers or looking for people not buckled up. The choice is clear.

  3. Luke D Says:

    I’m trying to appeal to common sense and human decency. There’s obviously a limit to how much the govt. can legislate our safety, but requiring seatbelts is an obvious way to help thousands. And you know, helmets are already required in many states for high risk activities. Another good idea.

    I dunno why this has to be set up as an either/or argument. Can’t the police go after the worst criminals (many of whom they find through routine traffic stops) and still write citations for seatbelt violations when they see them? I’m willing to bet that most seatbelt violation tickets (besides the ones they write as part of “Click it or Ticket,” which I agree is supremely annoying) come about as a second or third charge for a more serious traffic stop. You get pulled over for speeding and the cop adds the seatbelt violation to the ticket he was already going to write. It’s a tricky subject, but really we must respect and enforce every law, even the silly ones, to avoid becoming arbitrary (or any more arbitrary).

    I think we could extend your Police argument to say that we don’t want our officers chauffeuring funeral processions or directing traffic when there are murderers and rapists out there. However, this public service is part of their job and part of their appeal. We cooperate with the Police in helping them find murderers precisely b/c we appreciate all the little ways they serve us every day. It’s a total PR campaign, and it all goes in together to produce better results in more serious cases. What do you think?

    Having said all that, I must wholeheartedly agree that the Govt. is too invasive. On the local level, my church wants to move out of the city and into the county, but the local leaders think our old city building is too beautiful to sell and demolish, so they’re trying to make us stay in it, even though it’s falling apart and would cost several millions to repair. I want to grab them by the lapels and scream that separation of church and state goes both ways: The church leaders don’t tell you how to collect taxes, and in exchange the town leaders don’t tell the church how to dispose of its assets.

  4. Roland Says:

    Luke, I just think that you have the right to be stupid if you want. You have the right to not wear a seatbelt or to run a business and allow smoking or drink coffee while you drive (yes, in some areas that is illegal).
    You know, you saftey was the real objective, then why not stiff fines? Did you know that in many states when they doubled or tripled the fine you get when speeding thru a construction zone that accidents actually went down there? How about if you are caught without a seatbelt you lose your car? Why doesn’t Govco do that? If saftey truly is their main objective, then why not very stiff penatlies? It’s because they only want to collect the money. Saftey is of secondary concern. You hit somewhere where it hurts you always win.
    It’s already a slippery slope. There is already talk in some areas of banning IPods from cars because it distracts drivers. It’s the old frog in a pot argument.

  5. Politics and Culture Says:

    Luke just doesn’t get it. Almost everyone agrees that seat belts should be used, and their use should be promoted. But it is not the job of our government to legislate safety.

    Let’s carry his argument to its logical end:

    When driving, government mandates that you wear a six-point safety harness (not just a seat belt), an approved helmet, a HANS device, and a fire-proof clothing. Also, you can only drive a car equipped with airbags all around and a complete roll cage.

    There you go! Now the ER docs will have plenty of time to save everyone from dying!

    Get out of my life, Govco!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: