Your Nanny State In Action
Posted by
Kevin
He saw the large truck, the kind that usually makes deliveries to offices, coming down Eastwood, preparing to make a right turn onto Division Street. Lipscomb said he could tell the truck wasn’t going to stop. So Lipscomb slammed on his brakes, flipping his bike and throwing himself into the street. He landed right at the intersection of Eastwood and Division.
The truck ran over his head.
“I didn’t see it coming, but I sure felt it roll over my head. It feels really strange to have a truck run over your head.”
His helmet, a Giro, was crushed, but Lipscomb’s head was fine.
See, now the Free Market(tm) had decided that this guy should die, and the Nanny State(tm) subverted the Market’s will. Doesn’t this prove that the Nanny State is eeeeeevil? If that doesn’t, what will?
Besides, what kind of pinko commie Marxist types thinks that it’s the government job to protect its citizens?
Comment 5/15/2007
Kevin, you left out the part where Ryan Lipscomb was going to not wear a helmet, but decided to because the nanny state made him. Oh wait, that’s because there isn’t a law in Wisconsin requiring people to wear bike helmets. I suppose that means that Ryan wore the helmet because he decided the risks for himself.
tgirsch, is it possible for you to engage in a discussion about the extent of intrusion of the government into our lives without bringing up the free market?
OK, we’ll go over and over this again until you grasp it completely. We’re not against helmet laws because wearing a helmet is a bad idea, we’re against helmet laws because they intrude upon our freedom. We’re against helmet laws, seatbelt law, and the like because they merely give the police one more pretext to interrupt and invade our personal lives, and seem to be merely a revenue enhancement device. We’re against laws that regulate risk, because a government that can outlaw helmet-less riding, can also outlaw bungy-jumping and sky-diving. It’s also not a stretch to also outlaw risky sexual behavior, plexiglass water pipes, or the sales of sex toys (for our own good, of course).
What part of freedom do you not understand?
Comment 5/15/2007
Hmm, as bike helmets are not designed to, nor will they, mitigate the effects of a truck rolling over your head, I’m not sure this is a poster case for bike helmet safety. (Bike helmets are designed to absorb the fatal proportion of a blow to the skull. Don’t believe me? Take your bike helmet and flex it with your hands. Now explain how something that flexible could protect you from the weight of a truck.)
Now, had the article reported that the guy first landed on his head, then this case could be used as an example of helmet safety.
As for the freedom argument, as long as everyone who chooses to not wear a helmet agrees that I should be free from having to pay for their care after sustaining head trauma which would have been avoided by not wearing a helmet, then I say leave your helmet at home if you so choose.
Comment 5/15/2007
[…] Kevin is rejoicing at the nanny state. It saved one life!!! Oh, wait? What’s that? No requirement in Wisconsin to actually wear a helmet? Oh crap! You got your personal responsibility all over me. People can make the right decisions without being threatened to under force of law? Who knew? […]
Pingback 5/15/2007
Please to be explaining how hoards of brain damaged cyclists are putting a crowbar in your wallet?
Oh, I guess you mean “universal nanny-state sponsored health care” which each of the three top Democratic front runners have a version of. That magical mandatory medical solution that’s going to protect a woman’s privacy on one specific medical procedure while simultaneously managing the whole country’s medical records in a central government database that’s going to be 100% hacker proof and immune from political data-mining.
So Ted, you’re saying I’ll be able to opt out of that? I think we can make a deal.
Comment 5/15/2007
As for the freedom argument, as long as everyone who chooses to not wear a helmet agrees that I should be free from having to pay for their care after sustaining head trauma
Seems to me that the very people who want the state to mandate our personal behaviors are the same people who support the concept of state responsibility for everyone’s medical care.
The ones who advocate freedom and personal responsibility in matters of risk assessment also advocate freedom and personal responsibility when it comes to medical care.
I can think of all kinds of instances where society ends up footing the bill for stupidity.
How ’bout if we make mountain climbing, hiking, camping and boating illegal because taxpayers have to foot the bill for the rescue efforts when starbucks commandos get themselves lost, stranded, adrift or eaten by wild animals while “getting in touch with nature”?
Comment 5/15/2007
StormyStandard Mischief:Who said anything about mandatory helmet laws? If you wouldn’t classify taxpayer-funded helmet awareness campaigns as “nanny state” type actions, you have my apology.
As for your “freedom” argument, absolute freedom at all times and in all places has a name: anarchy. We as a society put what we collectively agree are reasonable limitations on freedoms all the time, especially when exercising those freedoms adversely impacts others. This is why you don’t have the “freedom” to point your stereo speakers out your windows at 3 AM and play Celine Dion full-blast. And that’s merely a nuisance. When you talk about actions that have social costs, you’re in a different realm entirely. That’s where you need to find a balance. At least you do if you want to have anything resembling an orderly, polite society instead of a nation of self-absorbed dickheads.
As to helmet laws in particular, I’m largely ambivalent about them. As Ted said, rather than outright bans, I’d like to see such laws written so that failure to wear a helmet / seat belt / whatever is an implicit limitation on the liability of others around you should you personally come to harm, even if through the fault of others. By not wearing a helmet/seat belt, you assume all the risks associated with your action.
Also, much of the “nanny state” whining against such requirements simply ignores history. Cars would not have seat belts and air bags and such safety features were it not for government requirements that they do. Sure, some would have them, but they would be considered “luxury” features, rather than being standard. Similar things can be said about most safety equipment. Without the “nanny state” driving them, they would be nowhere near as widespread, and libertarians would generally have absolutely no problem with this, because that’s what “the market” would have decided.
Finally, I’m sick and tired of this childish, idiotic slippery-slope false-dichotomy bullshit, wherein we have to outlaw absolutely everything or absolutely nothing. It’s as anti-democratic as it is stupid. Happy mediums can be reached, and are reached all the time. Requiring car makers to install air bags is not an automatic step down the road toward banning freedom of travel, or anything of the kind.
The problem with libertarians, as I see it, is that their entire worldview is predicated on a balance between personal liberty and personal responsibility, but it focuses exclusively on guaranteeing the former without so much as lifting a finger to ensure the latter.
Finally, as to your “universal health care” rant, bullshit. I’ll guaran-damn-tee, that if you live in any medium-to-large city, you’re already helping to pay for some sort of medical center that cares for people who are seriously injured but have no health coverage and cannot afford to pay. Just about everywhere, state laws prohibit hospitals from turning away trauma patients on the basis of ability to pay for care, so that even if the state or other government isn’t helping to pay for this, those costs are then absorbed by their paying customers. So those “armies” of “brain-damaged” cyclists are already costing you (and me, and Ted) real money. Right now. Today. Without anything even approaching universal health care.
Now if you think we ought to repeal those requirements and pull that funding, you’re entitled to that opinion. (You’d also be a soulless bastard, but that’s beside the point.) But good luck convincing the population at large that they ought to agree with you. As long as we live in a democracy, those types of care are here to stay.
Comment 5/15/2007
tgirsch Says:
Yea, you’re talking to the wrong libertarian. I seem to be almost unique in the fact that I don’t have a problem with the government dictating requirements to the limited liability companies, as long as you can make a case for it. (although the case for airbags is still a mite thin, I have little problem with the state requiring seat belts in manufactured cars. I have little problem with the state requiring seatbelts for taxis. I do have a problem with laws prohibiting me from removing them from my own private auto.)
This is actually why I’d fight vigorously against Mall-Wart being mandated to stock and sell Plan B, but don’t have the same problem with forcing “Holy Catholic Missionary Position Hospital” to do the same thing. The deal is that the hospital has already taken public money and therefore transformed themselves into a quasi-public agency.
You’re 100% right on this and don’t think I’m not pissed. It’s supposed to be a “safety net”, not a hammock.
I hit you with the “universal health care” rant because It was the perfect chance. I’ve yet to see any supporters explain exactly how the most sacred privacy evr, a woman’s right to chose, is going to be managed with the state controlling everything. So far I’ve gotten zero honest, well thought out responses. Somehow people don’t believe the nanny state will ever poke their nose into private citizens’ health records exactly the same way they are doing with private phone records and peering internet traffic. Are supporters so naive to think that the anti-abortion maggots will never regain any power in this country, or if they do, the would never violate that sacred trust?
I suppose that they will have special clinics where people could just walk off the street and get an abortion no questions asked, totally at taxpayer expense, but for anything else, you’ll need to show your RFID enabled Real ID card and wait in line for health care rationing.
Oh, and I’d also expect that the state will also comb people’s private records looking to see if anyone had ever taken anti-depressants and use that to deny basic civil rights. (”Basic civil rights” is a “code word” for guess what.) Ever had Flexarial for a strained back? That’s actually an anti-depressant that has really good muscle relaxation side effects. it’s the same deal with Eleavil, except that one is really good at inducing sleep as a side effect.
If we ever get that dystopian future, however, they might mandate that 18-25 year-olds not wear a helmet. After all, they’ll need a steady supply of mandatory organ donors.
Comment 5/15/2007
SM, I see your point wrt universal health care. You don’t want to bequeath access to your medical information to an organization. You don’t want others deciding what medical procedures you receive will or will not be subsidized. And it seems most importantly, you don’t want to pay for someone else’s health care.
For these reasons I have no doubt that you eschew health insurance.
Comment 5/16/2007
SM:
We’re veering off-topic now, but I wouldn’t support a Canadian-style Universal Health Care system where all services must be obtained from government providers. I would instead prefer a system where everyone is welcome to use (and, through taxation, help pay for) those providers and services, but could elect to go to a private practice at their own expense. Doing so would not exempt you from helping to pay for the government-run system, any more than sending your kid to private school (or not having kids at all) exempts you from helping to pay for the school system.
With respect to abortion, most of the time (though certainly not always), it’s an elective procedure, and I wouldn’t want the state-run system providing elective services (cosmetic surgery being another example). The free market does a pretty good job of handling those cases already, and so in that case, I’d continue to let it do so.
Regarding personal records, you do what we do now with IRS records and the like: you prosecute the holy hell out of anybody who abuses access to that information. In any case, as Ted implies, your personal medical records are probably already in far more nefarious hands than those of the government.
Comment 5/16/2007
Oh, and on the seat belt thing? I’m totally okay with allowing you to remove them from your private vehicle, as long as you never take that vehicle off your own private property. Once you start driving on public roads, however, the rest of us do have some say as to what you can and can’t do.
Comment 5/16/2007