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