What do I consider a nanny state measure?
Sibby has a post today asking me why I’m not all over a certain issue as “nanny statery”:
Senate Bill 154 was started yesterday and it adds 3 and 4 years to the state aid formula for schools. As Senator Ed Olson has stated, it is time for taxpayers to “Pony Up”. And also time for private Daycares to shut down. Come on Pat Powers, let us here about the “Nanny State”.
Read that here. Steve wants to “here” about why I don’t consider this a measure involving the nanny state. And it’s a legitimate question as to what I do and don’t consider nanny state-ism, and bring it under an umbrella wherein I lambaste it and complain ad nauseum.
When I look at things and quantify them as being part of the nanny state, one of the key things I look at are whether it is a ban or a mandate, or otherwise involves strong governmental regulatory action to otherwise compel what has been heretofore legal behavior. It’s government saying that you shouldn’t or you can’t, just because those who have been elected to office think it’s in your best interest. Does it infringe on our life, liberty, and the pursuit of our happiness?
Government does have an interest in the health and safety of it’s citizens. But there also comes a point where the actions are intrusive, and based on no more than legislative whim. Or even worse, it was the whim of a legislator in a different state, and it has been perpetuated from national meetings of legislators, despite it having never been a problem in South Dakota.
What got me started on this was back several years ago, Democratic Legislator Chet Jones advocated a ban on butterfly knives. Despite few reports of roving gangs of butterfly knife wielding assailants. Few as in none. I had to sit and ask myself – why? What greater public purpose did we serve by banning something that wasn’t a problem? That wasn’t leadership. It was just an onanistic gesture where those who voted for it got to feel good that “they did something about the problem. Even though the problem didn’t exist – or if it actually did, was so minimal that common sense should have prevailed as opposed to wielding the sledgehammer of legislative action.
Kind of like this year, when the response is so out of proportion with the problem it staggers the mind. Immediately at hand is Don Van Etten’s Tan Ban – where just like suspicions of child abuse and spousal abuse, he wants to have mandatory reporting by health care workers of sunburns to state authorities?
Think a moment – mandatory state reporting of sunburns by health care workers. It boggles the mind in it’s stupidity.
Jerstad’s adult business bill is tougher, because the state does have an interest in regulating obscene material which has a broad definition in state law. But the way the bill is written, it appears to be directed at banning the business selling the same things as Walmart, convenience stores, drug stores and libraries, except the difference is that all the stuff is aggregated in one place. If you want to place restrictions on “the stuff” they sell, try to legislate frilly thongs as obscene (and good luck with that one).
The biggest one I’m asked about is abortion. Nanny state measure or not? I’d frame that debate this way – Is the state intruding on a personal decision (absolutely nannyism), or is it acting in a legitimate state interest in protecting a life from ending (absolutely not a nanny measure). As soon as someone can definitively answer and effectively legislate the determination as to when life begins, that’s going to provide a response as to whether it’s a nanny state measure or not.
And then we get to other issues which I haven’t included, such as Senate Bill 154. Why not?
I know Steve is hot on this topic, as he went and testified on it. I was listening to the testimony while I was working on other projects at one of my several desks. The measure in this instance is titled “An act to allow public schools to maintain pre-kindergarten programs, to provide the Board of Education with rule making authority for pre-kindergarten programs, and to provide funding through the state aid to education formula for students in accredited pre-kindergarten programs.”
I’d ask the question right off – where’s the component of being mandatory? An act to ALLOW pre-kindergarten is much different than an act to REQUIRE pre-kindergarten. In this case, it appears that the decision to offer it would be a decision at the school board level. There might be public policy issues I might agree with or disagree with in public schools offering pre-kindergarten programs, but I don’t see where anyone is making it a mandatory requirement.
That’s my take on it. In making your own decision about what is on overreach of government authority – where do you draw the line as to what constitutes the nanny, and what doesn’t?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I define a nanny state issue as any governmental violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Essentially, this is whereby the more distant governmental entity invades on the legitimate authority of a closer entity (all the way down to the individual) whereby either the compelling interest the distant entity is insufficient to justify the intrusion or the right rests solelywith the closer entity by virtue of natural or constitutional law.
Interesting thread, PP.
I’d argue that there are “nanny” ideas and “big daddy” (or big brother, if you prefer) ideas, both of which can lead to legislation that constitutes an overeach of Government authority.
To characterize it all as “nannyism” is actually pretty sexist framing on its face if you think about it (that is, unless you know a lot of male nannys.)
The upshot is, you might want to include a “big brother” pejorative in some of your rants from time to time. Perhaps such a little linguistic tweak might even help you clarify some of your own thoughts on the matter.
Bill, I think we are becoming hyper-sensitive. Call it all “Big Brother” as far as I am concerned. I don’t consider it a slap at malehood to have this referred to in the masculine.
4. Well, that’s what we used to call it. Why the change? Have you read George Lakoff’s books Troy. The distinction is critical, actually.
I have not read his book but did read the site you gave. I will allow anyone to use the term “big brother” and will not take offense. Similarly, I in turn won’t express much empathy for those offended by the use of the less-gender specific “nanny state”. I think this hyper-sensitivity diminishes what Lackoff believes- that metaphors enhance communication of thought.
6. Right. Carefully chosen metaphors. Don’t say “nanny” when you mean “big brother.” That’s all I’m sayin’.
I thought big brother was already taken for meaning Big Brother is watching you. Hardly the types of things PP brings up in his nanny state essay.
Big Brother, Nanny its is all the same thing. Big Government infringement on individual rights.
We need a Bill introduced to change SD to one of the intelligent states where the legislature meets every other year. It would slow the gradual loss of all individual rights by 50%.
How many issues we are dealing with this year couldn’t wait until 2009 to be dealt with?
Here’s the relevant info, guys.
Excerpt from above link:
“Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the “strict father model” and has a family structured around a strong, dominant “father” (government), and assumes that the “children” (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible “adults” (financially and morally responsible beings). However, the “children” are “adults”, and so the “father” should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the “nurturant parent model”, based on “nurturant values”, where both “mothers” and “fathers” work to keep the essentially good “children” away from “corrupting influences” (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.[3]“
Chet Jones is a (unflattering term I have to redact -pp) and huge (terminology for an orifice which I’m redacting – pp)! I wish that guy would disappear off the face of the earth. He is a waste of human flesh.
Anonymous, I don’t have any basis to agree or disagree with you, but if you’re going to accuse Chet of being the first thing I redacted, you need to put your name to it and cite examples, please.
Mr. Fleming’s posting of the differences between liberal and conservative is very enlightening. Thanks.
As to its application to the abortion question however, we here in central SD (not east river, not west river !) point to the fiasco caused by the legislature a couple of years ago. The pols – many Republican, some Democrat – way over reached and the voters quickly reacted and corrected the misguided swerve into the ditch.
It just proves the point made by Socrates more than 2000 years ago – most politicians can’t be leaders; they are inherently followers, trying to discern and keep up with the whims, quirks and momentary impulses of a slim group of noisy voters.
NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! NANNIES UNDER THE BED! NANNY STATE! COMMUNIST, FLOURIDE SUPPORTING, NANNY STATERS EVERYWHERE! NANNY STATE!
15. Have a question for you lefties. Why are the liberal blogs all over the Guv’s cuts in the SDHP? You guys are the first to whine when the SDHP does those searches that lead to pot busts, and the first to scream about infringement on civil liberties, etc. So now you are on the HP bandwagon? Sounds to me like you support ‘em when it’s politically expedient.
Great post, PP. Would banning gay marriage count as a nanny-state issue? I believe it fits your qualification of “It’s government saying that you shouldn’t or you can’t, just because those who have been elected to office think it’s in your best interest.”
Some friends of mine would definately say it infringes on their life, liberty, and the pursuit of our happiness.
Though I think that issue is trickier since most of the bans have come from citizen initiatives. Even so, I think it might fit.
pp, in re sb 154, is there taxpayer dollars involved? if so, then it is nanny-statism, even if it is voluntary.
PP,
Steve Sibson is 100 percent wrong when he says that 3 and 4 year olds will be added to the state aid formula. That is not at all what the legislation attempts to do. The bill allows the state Board of Education to set up standards for pre-K operation and standards for pre-K staff.
This might be a foot in the door, but it doesn’t involve any state-aid money at this point.