Nanny State Strikes Again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

California, the ultimate Nanny State, is about to mandate that all new houses and buildings be "Solar Ready".

This will require roofs to be facing South and have an unobstructed view of the son most of the day. High efficiency windows and insulation will also be required.

This will add a lot of cost to new houses at a time when the building industry is already struggling. Most people don't know that there are already rules in place that will not allow you to sell your house unless you have front loading clothes washers and I think there is a house sales tax now as well that goes to the Feds.

---

Just think if there were no standards at all for building you would be able to buy your new house on the cheap and then find out there's no insulation in the walls and your bills would be humongous or you pipes weren't properly buried and they froze in the winter and your cheap wiring shorted out on you and the substandard concrete crumbled. There is a reason for standards and there have been energy efficiency standards for years now. It's not just about you but society as a whole. Way back New York City mandated skyscrapers had to be built stepped so sun could make it in to the streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

I don't generally discuss politics or religion, but thought I'd add this: I heard on the radio this morning that New York City is considering banning restaurants from serving any sugary drinks over 16 oz.Now That's going too far.

And back to the original topic, all blue laws ever accomplished here in SC was to make bootleggers rich!

---

Consider the ultimate Blue Law was prohibition in the early 20th century. So who pushed that on us? Extreme Right Wing and religious folks trying to make the population live according to their beliefs and you know what happened to that.

I grew up in NYC and the Blue laws said businesses could not operate on Sunday period (with few exceptions) once again some segment of the population trying to make others live their beliefs just in that case the almighty buck put an end to that but only when corporations decided to act.

Well, I hate to disagree with you Nelson, but now everyone is working for those corporations and they want you to work every second of every day. Seems there is no middle ground. It's a shame when both parents work, and for what? Things, possessions, money so you can buy more things. And in the mean time, who is raising the children? The TV and babysitters. Things weren't perfect before, but they are surely no better now.

I don't agree with anything that is either too far left or right. But when did we start legislating things that should be common sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeSomebody

But when did we start legislating things that should be common sense?

---

When people stopped using common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

When people stopped using common sense.

---

You could add to that because being stupid is now profitable, like spilling hot coffee on yourself and being rewarded in a lawsuit.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Consider the ultimate Blue Law was prohibition in the early 20th century. So who pushed that on us? Extreme Right Wing and religious folks trying to make the population live according to their beliefs and you know what happened to that.

I grew up in NYC and the Blue laws said businesses could not operate on Sunday period (with few exceptions) once again some segment of the population trying to make others live their beliefs just in that case the almighty buck put an end to that but only when corporations decided to act.

---

I hear ya, BigSpendur-Really, the big Drug War that started in the 80's has had about the same effect: meaning little to none on people using them, but creating vast empires that operate with seeming impunity, as with the Mexican cartels that have violently killed tens of thousands-I have Mexican students who can tell some stories about that. I don't think governments often consider "the law of unintended consequences" that eventually lead to the REAL effects of well-intentioned legislation.

Not sure where to draw the line, as I am all for the bans on smoking in restaurants and public buildings in the name of public health (greater good), but we seem to be losing a lot of our freedoms in the name of "safety," and gradually becoming more and more regulated (ala Germany and Singapore). It is worth noting that two great ancient Chinese dynasties collapsed under the weight of excess bureaucracy.

Still, we are absolutely better off with building codes, safer cars, clean air and water, and other things we now take for granted. Bet we always seem to go to extremes in political cycles, rather than just thinking about what will provide the greatest good for the most people. And thus, we get the kind of government we deserve...

Aaron

"Greater good" is an awful slippery slope, IMO.

The yardstick for me is liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

"Greater good" is an awful slippery slope, IMO.

The yardstick for me is liberty.

---

That term "Greater good" has been been abused by various tyrants, both on the extreme right and left, over the years but it still has some validity. The key is to have a balanced approach and knowing when to impose or not. The my way or no way approach does not work.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

That term "Greater good" has been been abused by various tyrants, both on the extreme right and left, over the years but it still has some validity. The key is to have a balanced approach and knowing when to impose or not. The my way or no way approach does not work.

Bob

---

I agree. But it does seem to work fairly well in dictatorships. The main issue is identifying a dictatorship.
This wasn't a problem before and up until the end of World War II and up until the fall of the Soviet block. The authoritarian nature of, for example, Nazi Germany and the USSR was unequivocal. These regimes had their view of what the "greater good" was and those that opposed them (the western democracies) could identify the problem with their interpretation of what the greater good was...
Now that ideology seems to matter less and less and with the gradual demise of several authoritarian regimes that seem to have their own idea of what the greater good might be, the frontier blurs and we get confused. I could state several examples that might turn out to be unwelcome - and that would prove my point... up to a point.
What I mean is: in a democracy talking about the greater good is a sensitive issue. We should abstain from using valorative arguments like that and focus on democracy, meaning, focussing on the idea of majority. The greater good would the be the notion of good that a certain majority has. But when dictatorships disguise themselves as democracies the idea of greatr good creeps up again and is no more than the authoritarian idea of the rulling few. But I ramble... and I fear that this post is already long enough. :)

Yea, well that is why I get nervous when people of any political stripe start spouting off about the "Greater good", it does work very well in a dictatorship.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

I don't generally discuss politics or religion, but thought I'd add this: I heard on the radio this morning that New York City is considering banning restaurants from serving any sugary drinks over 16 oz.Now That's going too far.

And back to the original topic, all blue laws ever accomplished here in SC was to make bootleggers rich!

---

Since Mayor Bloomberg has also outlawed consumption of salt, I doubt 16 ounce big gulps will be required! It won't be long until you can't buy red meat, anything fried or deserts containing sugar in NYC. Post-dinner smoke or cocktail? Totally out of the question. Some will agree, others will disagree but "the greater good" doesn't have a damn thing to do with laws like this, it's a control ploy nothing more, nothing less. I for one have a lot of heartburn with the government regulating things that should clearly be individual choice. What makes this law especially ridiculous is that I can't buy any drink over 16 ounces in size. If however I want to buy 5 refills of a 12 ounce coke then I'm in good shape, right?

I hope none of you guys seriously think I am for any form of dictatorship. In politics, you can parse a phrase like "greater good" just about any way you want; then it devolves into Orwellian semantics. But in actuality, a dictatorship only benefits the few politically-connected apparatchiks. Would you guys prefer that our government exist to benefit only an elite few? (I think you could make a very convincing argument that our own government does this, but that's another bottomless pit...).

What was it I said earlier about not discussing politics? I'm going to crawl back into my hole now, for the greater good.
:mace:

Maybe we should have a points system in this country where when it came to dealing with health problems someone told you well, you smoked and drank heavily and ate bad things and drank bad things so we're gonna jack up your healthcare costs and maybe...oh wait that's the exact system we have now when PRIVATE insurers deny coverage or charge more because of fabricated reasons they come up with. Or maybe they discover you lied about something on your application and just deny your treatment totally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Or maybe they discover you lied about something on your application and just deny your treatment totally.

---

Yeah, imagine that - someone denied service for lying and committing fraud. My goodness, what has this world come to?

I agree that if you have signed a contract and have been subsequently found to have breached that contract (like lying about a health-related issue to a health insurer) then of course the other party is well within their rights to terminate that contract. Assuming of course the contract itself is legal and not in breach of any relevant laws.

However, the issue for me is the system that creates a need for such contracts in the first place, and the power differential between the parties involved. It seems to me, coming from Australia which has arguably (and comparatively-speaking) a quite equitable health system run on the people's behalf by the Government, that a corporate approach to health care is a certain recipe for market failure in a human services sector like health, and more generally in public health.

Let's face it, health care is not a typical "market" in the economic sense, and if you think it is I pray to God (or whoever) on your behalf that you never get seriously ill. People may argue in fact that your health care treatment should follow an economic model, and that a cost-benefit approach should be taken, but be honest: when it is you or your nearest and dearest, economics holds little sway. The "market" fails in these circumstances (until legislation passes that allow health care companies to euthanise its "terminal and expensive" clients), and when markets fail it is common and accepted economic theory that Government steps in.

Further, the (growing number of) lower socio-economic classes can little afford health insurance costs, and they do in fact get sick on occasion. Again, in my eyes that is a market failure by simple definition. And again, in my opinion the Government needs to step in in those cases.

People may argue why should their taxes go toward the dole-bludging, chain smoking, crack-addicted members of the citizenry? I say because they are your fellow countrymen and women, and who else is going to watch out for them if not you? What sort of country allows its own citizens to just fall away because of a political and economic ideology? One that has forgotten its roots, I think.

James.

Sorry, I am NOT my brothers keeper and he is not mine.

To me, government intervention in my health care is plain and simple tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Yeah, imagine that - someone denied service for lying and committing fraud. My goodness, what has this world come to?

---

Nice try however it's not that someone failed to mention the previous heart attack but more in line with some obscure test you took 15 years ago that was negative but forgot to list it and they use that to deny coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sorry, I am NOT my brothers keeper and he is not mine.

To me, government intervention in my health care is plain and simple tyranny.

---

How Christian of you....

I think there is something to be said for the idea: "The best way to help mankind is to make sure that mankind never needs to help you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

How Christian of you....

---

Please explain to me what is Christian or even charitable about a citizen who pays the government racketeers enough protection money to stay out of prison? Seems to me, if folks want to demonstrate their true sense of charity (Christian or otherwise) they should do so of their own free will. Volunteer work, donations to churches or other charitable causes of your own choosing would be examples. But income taxes? Isn't that a lot like if you got robbed at gun point and then ran around patting yourself on the back because you just helped a poor unfortunate out? I say to Warren Buffett and the rest of these self-loathing jack wagons screaming that they don't pay enough taxes, there is certainly no law that says you can't cut them a check with a few extra zeroes at the end of the year, if that will make you feel better. In Buffett's case however, it appears he wasn't even paying them what he owed them let alone anything extra.

Speaking of Christian - it's interesting that much of the art of the early renaissance was commissioned over people's guilt about violating the usury laws of the Church.
It would be interesting if bankers were that worried about their souls these days - we would have great works of art all over the place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Please explain to me what is Christian or even charitable about a citizen who pays the government racketeers enough protection money to stay out of prison? Seems to me, if folks want to demonstrate their true sense of charity (Christian or otherwise) they should do so of their own free will. Volunteer work, donations to churches or other charitable causes of your own choosing would be examples.

---

Please explain to me how it is Christian to turn a blind eye to suffering, to have millions that are uninsured turned away at hospital doors or forced into bankruptcy? Please explain to me how it is Christian to say it's every man for himself and not have a care for the underpriviledged. Oh, that's right, OTHER PEOPLE will take care of that with low level charity so you won't have to think about it. As my comment wasn't directed at you, or even regarding your much loathed gub'ment, all I can say is that's very Christian of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

I think there is something to be said for the idea: "The best way to help mankind is to make sure that mankind never needs to help you."

---

That "every man for himself" attitude sounds good in theory, but doesn't work that well in reality. Everyone needs some help or compassion sometime in their life. You never had to borrow a few bucks from your folks when you were growing up or starting out? Never had to crash on a buddies' couch? :)

Of course I have. I was just saying... there's something to the idea.

At this point I have mostly stopped arguing and am just posting for my own amusement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

Please explain to me how it is Christian to turn a blind eye to suffering, to have millions that are uninsured turned away at hospital doors or forced into bankruptcy? Please explain to me how it is Christian to say it's every man for himself and not have a care for the underpriviledged. Oh, that's right, OTHER PEOPLE will take care of that with low level charity so you won't have to think about it. As my comment wasn't directed at you, or even regarding your much loathed gub'ment, all I can say is that's very Christian of you.

---

I said nothing of turning a blind eye to anyone. Don't know how the Canadian propaganda machine works but despite what you may have heard, refusal of medical attention based on ability to pay is against the law in the United States. And FWIW, more people have been driven into bankruptcy by overreaching government intervention (especially the gangsters at the IRS) than medical bills. As far as my own "charitable contributions" not only have I paid every penny I ever owed in income taxes but thanks to my voracious appetite for all things tobacco, I've been instrumental in providing God knows how many under priveleged children with health care, my contributions to social security have undoubtedly went to one of "The Greatest Generation" and I have no problem with that except for contrary to one of the first promises in the War on Poverty, when I'm too old to work, I'll probably see NOTHING. Thanks to my government's wonderful stewardship of that program. Oh yeah, I do make charitable donations to other organizations as well.

My government has waged a "War on Poverty" and beat the same Christian charity and patriotism drum since the Johnson administration (about a year after I came off the teat). The war on poverty was consistently used to justify deeper and deeper digs into the pockets of hard working people and whatever was coming in never seemed to be enough. The truth of the matter is that our government has woefully mismanaged every penny every collected during the War on Poverty. The only successful battle of this war was to create an entire subculture, completely dependent on the nanny state and completely incapable of becoming self reliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Nice try however it's not that someone failed to mention the previous heart attack but more in line with some obscure test you took 15 years ago that was negative but forgot to list it and they use that to deny coverage.

---

First it was "lied about something on your application" now it's "forgot." The story changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

I've been instrumental in providing God knows how many under priveleged children with health care, my contributions to social security have undoubtedly went to one of "The Greatest Generation" and I have no problem with that except for contrary to one of the first promises in the War on Poverty, when I'm too old to work, I'll probably see NOTHING.

---

Yup, so have I. And if it makes you feel any better I won't see a dime of CPP (Canada Pension Plan) either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

The only successful battle of this war was to create an entire subculture, completely dependent on the nanny state and completely incapable of becoming self reliant.

---

Same thing happens here too, too many people reliant on Welfare and EI. The heart of these programs is compassion, but it is abuse that is the root of the problem, not the existence of social assistance itself. Sure, government puts forth the programs, but whose fault is it that the programs are abused? The government for not being stringent enough, or the individuals for abusing the system? I think blaming the goverment for creating a welfare subculture is overgeneralizing a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

FWIW, more people have been driven into bankruptcy by overreaching government intervention (especially the gangsters at the IRS) than medical bills.

---

I don't doubt that it exists, but my curiosity about things would like to see a reference for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

it is abuse that is the root of the problem, not the existence of social assistance itself.

---

Bingo!!!!

To all those people that think we don't pay enough taxes, feel free to send in a much as you like.

Telling me that I must contribute because YOU want to help people is tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

To all those people that think we don't pay enough taxes, feel free to send in a much as you like.

Telling me that I must contribute because YOU want to help people is tyranny.

---

I agree that many people are overtaxed, but I also think that many are undertaxed.
The whole system is broken.

But, saying that you shouldn't have to contribute is nonsense. Government most definitely serves a purpose.
The only question is what purpose and to what extent....

I happen to think that the government takes in more than it should, and wastes a lot, so I am not entirely in disagreement with your sentiment, but blanket statements don't really help an argument either.

It has always been interesting to me when certain groups hammer the bible as the foundation of our counties ideology when it comes to homosexuality or any other hot topic but go quiet when it comes to taking care of "the least of these". If anyone wants verses, growing up in Oklahoma...I can certainly oblige, but I'd rather spare y'all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

It has always been interesting to me when certain groups hammer the bible as the foundation of our counties ideology when it comes to homosexuality or any other hot topic but go quiet when it comes to taking care of "the least of these". If anyone wants verses, growing up in Oklahoma...I can certainly oblige, but I'd rather spare y'all...

---

Father forgive them, for they know not how to legislate

The welfare system is broken. Too many people take advantage of it and work the system. The Democrats try to add as many people to the rolls as possible and see no reason try try to get people off of welfare.

I have no problem giving people a leg up, but there should be a time limit. What I have a problem is with people getting on welfare for life and having babies just to increase their monthly check. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

I was behind two women in Walmart. There were about 4 kids circling them. I am guessing that they were mother and grandmother. They had two baskets overloaded with food, diapers, etc. Their total bill was over $650 of which they shelled out $100. The rest was food stamps. Incredible.

I have a woman in my WOW guild that has 3 kids by two different fathers and is now married to a third. Neither of them have jobs. When I asked her about it she stated, "my kids are my job". Her husband, she has been married less than a year, briefly worked at Wal-Mart said he quit because the job was hurting his back. Poor baby. They have no incentive to even look for work, but somehow they have enough money to afford a very high speed internet connection and at least 3 computers connected at the same time. Her "job" is neglected because she plays WOW so much she actually makes herself sick. She is online all hours of the day and night whining about being sick to her stomach and her migraines. This is wrong.

There is a Cell Phone plan. All that is required to qualify is to be on "some kind" of government assistance. I think it is called Life Line. You get a free cell phone and 200 minutes / month. Apparently 200 minutes is not enough. The system is not monitored. All they have to do is go to another cell phone company and sign up for another plan. They found over 200,000 people signed up for MORE THAN 2 PLANS. How is "helping out the least" include a free cell phone? This has cost us 1.6 Billion last year and will be over 2 Billion this year.

This spending in the name of compassion is out of control and needs to stop NOW.

In every area you will find cheats and frauds and no system can be designed that will eliminate it unless you want to create a vast Govt bureaucracy just to monitor this stuff. it's no different than the businessman cheating on his taxes or the corporation who dumps toxic waste in the river or ocean or the oil company that caused all that mess in the Gulf or the military contractors who produce shoddy materials and overcharge the taxpayer. You don't have to look hard to find folks trying to game every system. Why pick only on social systems?

lets start with the corporations and work our way down.

vast government bureaucracy to oversee corporations = good
vast government bureaucracy to oversee looters = bad

?

They already put business fraud people in jail.

If they started doing the same thing to welfare cheats it would probably overflow the already drowning jail system.

I think if by finding the fraud and kicking the people out of the system completely from all government assistance we could get the system under control. There needs to be consequences and time limits. Making trade school mandatory for welfare and put a time limit for people that aren't disabled. After the school is completed, kick them off the rolls.

I have not been able to figure out how to stop welfare babies. Nadia Suleman is about to be out on her a**. I'm glad the Dr lost his license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Nadia Suleman

---

Should I know who that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Should I know who that is?

---

You must not read or watch the "liberal" media.:p

You have heard of Octomom. The _single_ woman who gave birth to 8 children after already having a number of kids. On purpose!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

They already put business fraud people in jail.

If they started doing the same thing to welfare cheats it would probably overflow the already drowning jail system.

I think if by finding the fraud and kicking the people out of the system completely from all government assistance we could get the system under control. There needs to be consequences and time limits. Making trade school mandatory for welfare and put a time limit for people that aren't disabled. After the school is completed, kick them off the rolls.

I have not been able to figure out how to stop welfare babies. Nadia Suleman is about to be out on her a**. I'm glad the Dr lost his license.

---

They do put welfare cheat people in Jail and suspend their benefits when they find them. Unfortunately welfare folks can't hire fancy lobbying outfits to write laws so that things that should be illegal are legal.

yea every now and then one some corporate guy steps way over the line and they go after him but that's just window dressing.