Are we over-governed/ a nanny state?

[xXNovaxX]

I have kept quiet for so long, each time though a new article pops up and i cringe.

"Ban smacking"- NOBODY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE RAISE OUR KIDS, except of course when it comes to abuse/murder etc. Yes I understand why it may be interpreted as "physical abuse", but as long as it doesn't cause bleeding/bruises/broken bones it's okay. How many times have you seen kids at the shopping centrres cryinga nd screaming and running away and their parents just ignore it/sit tehre, zzzz

NOW we have banning plasma tv's because they consume too much electricity. In California it's being undertaken, and has been  encouraged here in Victoria.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/state-government-urged-to-ban-big-plasma-televisions/story-e6frf7jo-1225787698124

zzzzz, It is nobody's business how much electricity or "black ballons" you emit. We are the ones PAYING for the service, so butt out for heavens sake. Why should people not be allowed to have entertainment sets which they have worked hard to pay for. Look, I am okay if manufactures are forced to somehow make their products more energy friendly, but I hate the outright BANS. I know everyone is "part of climate change", but there are other methods to reducing CO2's.

Also, the banning of those type of lights, you know...the non- fluro ones?
That isn't so bad (we have some at our home), but come on, the more energy efficient ones are too bright, take long to heat up and shine to full capacity, and they look UGLY and long. But why ban the production of the non fluro ones? oo much government intervention. It shouldn't have been done since the greener alternatives were being sold and produced anyway, that is there wasn't "market failure" where nobody is buying/investing in the better option. I don't like being forced what to purchase.

The continuous debate of BANNING cars in the CBD.....fix the bloody public transport system first so we aren't squished like sardines, and so we get to our destination on time.

The suggestions a  few years back of banning 4WD because they are "too dangerous". zzzzz what about the thousands of people who have them and paid like 40 K +. That was a ludicrous proposal, ban trucks and vans while you're at it, they're "big" and "dangerous". 4WD are bought for safety for the people/families who are INSIDE them, and predominately to travel rugged terrain and beaches which Australia is renown for.

A school also recently proposed or undertook (can't remember) to ban cars within the radius of the school because they were encouraging children to walk and save emissions and get exercise. For gods sake man, in many schools some students live like 15-30 minutes away by car, some people don't like to have their children walk to school because of safety concerns, and some people can simply CBF WALKING.

Banning of junk food at schools. ARGH that still pesters me (1 more month until freedom).

For many of us, we are thin, healthy, and active, and know how to eat in propprtion. For people like me for example i only go canteen to have a treat here and there maybe 3-4 times a TERM? Why should I be prevented from having a chocolate bar, or coke, or a donut because SOME people are unhealthy and don';t know how to look after themselves. Or because some parents are TOO LAZY  to look after their children. Well I now simply just get the treats from the shops and home, stuff the canteen.

Okay at primary school i CAN understand why they ban it, and I agree with it. Because at this age is when people may get into the habit of eating un healthy, and its at this stage which is vital for their growth. But at highschool? WTH, we're old enough to know what to eat.


[end rant]

[Collin Li]

I agree with the general gist of what you are trying to say, but I do think we're quite lucky in that we aren't that over-governed.

However, environmental solutions (not those ones in particular) are necessary to influence private decision making to more closely mimic what might be the "socially optimal" decision. For a whole lot of markets, this doesn't require much government intervention other than typical "free market infrastructure", but for markets with externalities, there may be other provisions required, like a carbon trading scheme (property rights on air).

Banning junk food at schools (if not a government policy) can be a useful school policy to "sell" to parents as a parenting tool.

[periwinkle]

 How much risk you are allowed to impose on others is somewhat moot. I know someone who advocates that the govt only intervene if you violate someone else's "life liberty or property."* In other words you are allowed to do anything you like [maybe drive at 160kmh after several drinks] as long as you don't cause actual harm. Though I'm broadly speaking a Libertarian [thanks to several epiphanies induced by Coblin and (former member) Brendan's cross-examinination of some of my previously fallacious thought processes ] I don't support this stance; someone could then do something which has, say, a 90% chance of killing someone without actually breaking the law. When the wellbeing of others is at risk, you shouldn't be able to be the sole determiner of the trade-off between the benefits and costs of recklessness.
Of course, regulations make for inconsistency; my dad is probably a safer driver while simultaneously having a mobile phone conversation than my newly qualified sister is without. I suppose there could therefore be measures a driver can take for the legal right to drive faster/after drinking/while talking on a phone: higher insurance premiums, an especially stringent test, the right to exchange one freedom for another, eg: be allowed to drink if they adhere to lower limit, or be allowed to go faster if they choose a smaller car, [which poses more of a risk to themselves and less to others.]
 With drugs too, how much causation between people taking a particular drug and causing harm to others is neccesary to warrant a ban? [Unless of course banning is unequivocally proved to be counterproductive, in which case we're spared the need to think about the other question!]
 
 *He used reductio ad absurdum to try to justify that view, arguing that: because the logical extreme of government criminalising acts which merely risk causing harm to others might entail locking up all men, because of the possibility that they *might* commit rape. Yet I'd argue they are different *degrees* of govt intervention and the fact that the aforementioned scenario would be dystopian isn't a justification for saying a lesser degree of rule-making is a bad thing.

[xXNovaxX]

... I did not understand ANYTHING you said perwinkle 
    -not what stance you take
    -not of your contention
    -not what reductio ad dsfjkfdjkfdjk has to do with anything

And yeah, agree Coblin, we aren't as over-governed as some nations. But one step at a time....just hopes it stops somewhere.

EDIT: the last 2 lines make sense though 

[xXNovaxX]

The Government has also banned bottled water in 2 country towns (note: not the FEDERAL). zzzzz

Like I am really open minded, not bias in any way, shape or form. For one I find it absolutely beyond my thinking why people would pay hundreds of dollars a year for bottled water, when the tap provides quality water (not a debate starter), I also find it amazing companies get away with producing bottled water when it wastes so much oil, produces so much Co2 etc.

HOWEVER, I know those people have the RIGHT to have access to these goods, and have the RIGHT to choose how they wish to buy/consume water, I don't go dictating around telling people "don't drink bottled water its not goof for the earth".

In this case it isn't a cause of concern for being over-governed, but more so PERSONAL CHOICE. We are talking about water god-damn it, water, not some illict drug.

[minilunchbox]

Wasn't it a shop owner that proposed the idea? And it was voted on by the entire town and it seems like they support it. But banning bottled water doesn't seem like that big a deal because they just replaced it with refillable bottles and there's filtered water fountains everywhere.

[xXNovaxX]

Wasn't it a shop owner that proposed the idea? And it was voted on by the entire town and it seems like they support it. But banning bottled water doesn't seem like that big a deal because they just replaced it with refillable bottles and there's filtered water fountains everywhere.

Just looked into that, thanks minilunchbox! And yes it was a shop owner, I guess if the whole town supoorted it, why not? But I hope they then don't campaign for it to be ontroduced Australia wide as tihngs usually turn out that way e.g. the town is like a "trial" then its implemented everywhere, but i'm sure Mount Franklin won't stand for it.

Yeah maybe that wasn't sooooo bad.

[TrueLight]

water from my tap is great

but seriously mount franklin rocks! compared to some other ones...

but yeah we are becoming more over governed and now with rudd its like accelerating

but yeah compared to other countries (hm america) we're pretty good ... overgoverning=leads to more problems which then they call for more overgoverning......

[xXNovaxX]

water from my tap is great

but seriously mount franklin rocks! compared to some other ones...

but yeah we are becoming more over governed and now with rudd its like accelerating

but yeah compared to other countries (hm america) we're pretty good ... overgoverning=leads to more problems which then they call for more overgoverning......

I think that's called bureaucracy at its finest .

You seriously think with Rudd it's accerlerating? Just because the opposition is called the LIBERAL Party doesn't mean they're any more liberal . Hahaha, I am not degrading your view, just interested, I never thought of it as a particular Government has been exerting more power. I just meant it in a general sense.

[TrueLight]

yes i do...i know, i didn't say they were good... its really frustrating how the politicians in australia never seem to explain anything in detail or their values or philosophy.. or stand by them strong... always wobble wibble... we seriously need people like Ron Paul here.... at least he explains every view he has and why it should be like that

[Mao]

... I did not understand ANYTHING you said perwinkle  
    -not what stance you take
    -not of your contention
    -not what reductio ad dsfjkfdjkfdjk has to do with anything

And yeah, agree Coblin, we aren't as over-governed as some nations. But one step at a time....just hopes it stops somewhere.

EDIT: the last 2 lines make sense though  

What stance he personally takes is not important, but his logic make sense, in that being over-governed is not ideal, but being under-governed is not acceptable either.

Also, reductio ad absurdum is a term used in logic for discussion of fallacy of a argument.

[Eriny]

Given that none of the policies you mentioned are actually in place, I don't see how it's a nanny state? All sorts of suggestions come under discussion all the time, and that in itself is not a bad thing.

As for banning smacking, actually yes, it is the business of other people if someone is violent towards their children. And it's also everyone's business if people are wasting collective resources with their light bulbs or 4WDs.

[xXNovaxX]

@ Mao, thanks for that i'll re-read the article again now I understand the general jist
@Eriny, okay maybe Nanny state was a it over the top, bit I used "nanny" because you/I visualise a nanny always chasing after you and ensuring everything is kept into line.

My point was that there are all these tiny rules which may SEEM insignificant, but for me I personally see it as SLOWLY going over the top.

And thanks for your opinions on that last paragraph Eriny, I never thought of it like that, and I do understand what collective resources are! So I should have dug deeper.

[Collin Li]

Collective resources are things we should aspire, as economists, to delegate.

Understanding that the market system is far better than planned economies, we wish to try to convert the market for pollution into a real market.

In fact, the term "market failure" is a misnomer. It's not a failure of the market, rather, it's a failure in that it hasn't successfully become a market.

A real market for pollution means that when you add pollution to the world, you are doing it within your property rights -- rather than adding to some "community property" (not what we want). Sounds bizzare right? But people have done it with the electromagnetic spectrum (radio/TV stations) and thats what the carbon trading scheme plans to do.

They're examples of turning a public good into a market. Turning a non-market (failure) into a market.

[Voltaire]

Collective resources are things we should aspire, as economists, to delegate.

Understanding that the market system is far better than planned economies, we wish to try to convert the market for pollution into a real market.

In fact, the term "market failure" is a misnomer. It's not a failure of the market, rather, it's a failure in that it hasn't successfully become a market.

A real market for pollution means that when you add pollution to the world, you are doing it within your property rights -- rather than adding to some "community property" (not what we want). Sounds bizzare right? But people have done it with the electromagnetic spectrum (radio/TV stations) and thats what the carbon trading scheme plans to do.

They're examples of turning a public good into a market. Turning a non-market (failure) into a market.

a very muddled mash of economic concepts..