Re: [SLUG] The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice (still)

On 29/06/11 14:28, david wrote:
>
 >Patrick wrote:
>>
>> Nice people. Nice boy. Good outcome...but it was
>> driven by a focus on his needs and potential.
>

David wrote:
> Good for whom?
>
> In the above case, you are applying your own set
> of nanny tests (ie: the good of the child
> etc....).

I'm afraid your definition of a 'nanny State' is 
too broad and appears to make anything the State 
does fall into this category, such as ensuring 
adequate road marking and applying rules for 
travelling on the roads, ensuring cars and trains 
don't share the same passageways of transport etc.

I've no problems with an ethical position which 
focuses on the ensuring that a child's physical, 
emotional and psychological needs are protected. 
It applies equally to all persons and appears 
fair, consistent and logical to me.

Furthermore the manner of it's application has a 
strong basis in research and thus a concrete frame 
from which to commence, unlike a generic 'what 
I/you think'.

In this case the child retained his life and leg, 
his parents were free to go about their beliefs 
unhindered by the State, he was able to meet his 
God at a later stage in life and discuss the 
events. Additionally the cost to the State was 
minimal.

Had it got down to it I'd would have had no 
problem seeking an order, but there was no reason 
to warn the parents of the possibility at any 
point and so they were not distressed.

Win:Win I say

:)

If the poor little blighter goes to hell
> after he dies because you meddled, how will you
> feel then?

If there was evidence of this possibility then the 
courts would expect it to be taken in to 
consideration and I would have have applied the 
same to the approach we took.

Meddling is such an ugly word. Enforcing an 
approach which took his physical and psychological 
needs into account seems much nice and closer to 
the facts.

I tend to view meddling as the actions of 
untrained, inexperienced, unqualified persons, 
frequently with no legal authority.

One argument (usually invoked by those I've just 
described above) would be that I was meddling, but 
in this case I had  the training, experience, 
qualifications and licence to do so.

LOL

>
> When the terrorist goes to paradise by blowing up
> 20 infidels, with or without the virgins, who are
> we to gain-say him? He just has more sincere
> beliefs than the average
> muslim/christian/jew/hindu blah blah blah.
>

I doubt that it's a more 'sincere' belief, just a 
suicidal one. I'm not convinced of people's 
sincerity merely because they insist on attacking 
innocent, unknowing people by blowing themselves 
up.  It's hard to run a control group or a 
post-explosion interview, but I have read some 
material to indicate that the persons involved 
have motives which are rarely so 'pure'.

Many of the globally respected heads of the Muslim 
faith consider suicide bombing to be an improper 
understanding of the faith.

For an interesting discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Muslim_religious_motivation


> The theocrats are often extreme nannies, but they
> aren't doing anything fundamentally different in
> principle than our government

I'd say that given most Western democracies have a 
heavy bent on allowing people their religion of 
choice (generally), a rule of law that is separate 
from the State, a general view that the State 
should intervene only in those instances wherein a 
person is acting in a fashion which impinges on 
the activities of others, then there is a 
significant difference.

That Western governments are not perfect goes 
without saying. I'd suggest going to live under a 
theocracy to see how it works in practice and how 
fundamentally (pun intended) different they are.

One can also see the mass migration of people 
*from* Western democracies to theocratic and 
similarly governed countries as a similar level of 
evidence of their fundamental similarity.

denying us the use
> of marijuana

Well, as a non-smoker, non-drinker, non-gambler 
I'd have to agree that the marijuana laws are 
ridiculous. I've no problem with people using any 
drug they see fit as long as their use doesn't 
affect me (driving a car, operating machinery, 
conducting brain surgery etc). I also believe the 
State should heavily educate against drug use but 
not criminalise it.

or the right to see porn

Well, that's a hard one. As a non-smoker, 
non-drinker, non-gambler...<grin> I'd agree that 
if a person wants to watch consenting adults 
having sex...who'm I to say otherwise? However, if 
a person wishes to watch child pornography, I've 
no problem with the State hunting the bastard down.

Research evidence clearly shows the harm occurring 
to children as a result of this behaviour and it's 
that fact alone on which I rely. I've read and 
heard (first hand) the arguments on the other 
side. They weren't convincing in any fashion. Just 
like so many of these alleged 'liberalist' 
arguments, they were sooooooooo heavily 
ego-centric and self-focused.

or the right
> to drive at 200kph.

Well that's just silly. I don't want you 
practising your Jack Brabham impersonation while 
I'm on the highway, unless the highway can take 
those speeds and your car can...and you can drive 
well at those speeds.

Have you ever driven at those speeds? I have. It's 
extremely dangerous unless your car and the road 
is designed for it.

They just have different ideas
> of what they want to nannify. None of it is very
> logical.
>

I disagree. I would agree that many laws (drug 
laws in particular) have a basis in moral 
arguments which are archaic, but a great many have 
a good basis in research and common sense. For 
instance, most Australian highways are too narrow, 
not straight enough and undulate too much for cars 
to travel safely at significantly higher speeds.

Alcohol use is dangerous and accounts for the cost 
of roughly 1 in 4 hospital bed occupations in the 
country. IN the late 1990s research published by 
the Vic Stage govt shows that the cost to the 
State of smoking was roughly equivalent to the 
income it generated. From memory it didn't include 
such things as the resulting costs to the 
community from the experience of their death by 
family and friends.

I don't have a problem with the Government 
ensuring that food is adequately cared for during 
production, transport and sale, that electrical 
items are not dangerous, that toys don't kill 
children etc.

> You probably think that's a stupid argument... but
> nearly all of our beloved leaders invoke the
> here-after constantly, and Tony Abbott is heavily
> into the wine turning into blood miracle thingie.
> Which is more stupid? If someone like him *really*
> believed, then he would have no problem at all
> placing the eternal before the temporal.

Can't comment. I don't' like religion infringing 
on the State.

> If you move away from religion - a very sound move
> in my opinion - you get the same sort of nonsense
> going on anyway. In the USA, Obama's medical plans
> are pinky socialism and if the poor people can't
> afford medicine then they should just die.

I'm not sure what you mean here. National health 
care is a logical, cheap and simple affair that 
the State has a responsibility to provide. All 
OECD countries (apart from the US) think this. It 
is more effective, cheaper and more equitable.

Do you mean "if the poor people can't afford 
medicine then they should just die" is what the 
weirdos think or what you think?

Fred > Nile prays every year that it will rain on 
the gay
> Mardi Gras parade. The Shooters party are
> desperate that we all have the right to pop each
> other off. The mob that gets into power will
> nannify their own prejudices. I'm sure I would
> too, if I could.
>


> If you say that those parents are "killing" their
> child, while correct, you are really missing the
> point by applying your own set of nanny filters,
> in this case regarding the importance of religious
> belief. It's part of the human condition. It's got
> little to do with law.

As I said, your concept of 'nanny' is so broad as 
to make no sense. I would argue that the 
relativist argument which was heavily favoured in 
the late 60s through the 80s has been seen 
generally to die from it's own pointlessness. If 
all things are 'relative' then it means nothing in 
truth and there is no basis for decision making of 
any form.

Foucault's notion of power is far more 
interesting, arguing that all relations are 
relations of power. His concept of discourse and 
the construction of reality through discursive and 
non-discursive means is fascinating, but runs the 
same risk of relativism. Human biology is often 
ignored in relativists arguments and Foucault runs 
the same risk. Attachment and attachment theory, 
psychological and neurological research evidence 
all provide a basis from which to construct a 
notion of human to inform decisions about what is 
reasonable and otherwise.


> In case you think I'm some sort of callous
> monster, there is no way that I would let a child
> die for religious belief. If I thought it would
> work I would be far more likely to forbid religion :)

I was wondering :)

The problem is that your argument about a 'nanny' 
State is so broad as to become an argument for 
relativism.

Ethical arguments which have no basis in biology, 
physiology and psychological development and needs 
lack a stable foundation and, to me, are merely 
arguments without foundation and merely occupy the 
curiosity end of the spectrum.


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html