New York - the nanny state

[hedgehog]

First off, I love New York. It is the quintessential nanny state with all kinds of laws to protect us from ourselves. These range from helmet laws, smoking bans, auto insurance requirements, lead paint inspections, building codes etc. Does anyone have any idea of lives saved vs. costs or a comparison of lives saved here vs those lost in states without such laws?

[Kingshakabobo]

1. Auto insurance requirements?

Building codes? :shrug:

Excuse me, but I would prefer that people who drive on public roads be required to carry insurance. Also, I would prefer we didn't leave it up to builders to decide how safe they make their buildings.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Maybe so, but...

If the government is going to require you to buy a certain item/service, they should provide it.

In other words, if they are going to force you to buy auto insurance, they ought to nationalize auto insurance and provide it.

[Beetwasher]

9. Heh?

Owning a car comes w/ certain responsibilities. Period. You can't get insurance? Don't own a car.

Now, should there be regulation of insurance industries so prices are reasonable? Yes, I would agree w/ that, but I shouldn't have MY tax dollars to go and pay for YOUR car insurance. (BTW, this is much different than nationalized health insurance. A citizen's health and well being i.e. the "general welfare" is NOT optional, owning a car is).

[hedgehog]

14. Here in New York we are required to carry auto liability.

Most people also carry uninsured driver insurance in case they get hit by someone from out of state.

[crispini]

17. We are also required to carry auto liability in Texas.

You still haven't produced a single example of a regulation you have that we don't have here in this red red red state.

Edited to add: Not only do we have MOTORCYCLE helmet laws, we have BICYCLE helmet laws. Top that!

[hedgehog]

48. We have bike helmet requirements and some regulation of

underage users of ATVs and snow mobiles. (sorry, I don't know the specifics). If we have the same regulations, how come NYS is called a nanny state and Texas isn't?

[crispini]

115. I dunno.

:shrug:

We also regulate underage users of ATVs... kids must be supervised by parents or guardians.

[hedgehog]

94. Whatever Texas has, I bet NYS had it first!

Which may be the answer top my original question. Other states follow once NYS proves something is a good idea.

By the way - mandetory vehicle inspectons?

[crispini]

116. Check.

In fact my inspection sticker just expired. :scared: Gotta go get that done before they get me a ticket.

WRT NY having it first -- could be, I dunno.

The point I'd really like to make here is that NOBODY in their right mind would call Texas a "nanny" state -- probably because of the public perception of the government down here. Yet we have compared a lot of laws and you haven't been able to come up with a single one in NY that we don't have yet. You have bought into the right wing frame of "nanny state" and you're applying it to your state of your own free will!

Don't buy into their BS. Good laws are good laws, period.

[Ms. Clio]

106. No, I don't think there is a motorcycle helmet law in Texas anymore

We used to have one, but I think they repealed it. I never understood why, especially since they are always pushing the "Click it or Ticket" seatbelt law.

[crispini]

114. Well, sort of.

You can not wear a helmet if:

"You have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course, or
are covered by a health insurance plan providing the person with at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or riding upon a motorcycle."

And you have to get a helmet exemption sticker! :rofl: That's almost as "nanny-ish" as a helmet law! :P

[Ms. Clio]

117. Oh, that IS funny--I did not know about the "helmet exemption sticker!"

They must have to pay something for it, too???

Freakin hilarious!

[crispini]

118. Yep. Five bucks for each motorcycle.

:rofl: Ah, the irony. Repeal the helmet law and get a no-helmet sticker law. :rofl:

[Ms. Clio]

119. All that red tape just to let the wind blow freely through your hair!

Such a great laugh, thanks!

[SteppingRazor]

15. Owning a car is optional?

Really? With the state of public transportation in America? I'd say for a lot of people, myself included, owning a car is just as important as good health (if not more so, depending on the definition of "bad health" -- I'd rather have the flu and a car than perfect health and no wheels).
How should people get to work, much less get anywhere else? We've created our cities with massive, outlying suburbias, and now that we have this sprawl we can just dismiss cars as irrelevant?

[Beetwasher]

18. It Comes W/ Certain Responsibilities

Including purchasing insurance. So, if it's not optional, should the state also buy you your car? :eyes:

That's absurd. Should the state invest in infrastructure and build more public trans. so you don't need a car? Yes. Buy YOUR car insurance?? No. That's ridiculous.

Sorry, but to say your car is just as important as your health is simply ludicrous.

[SteppingRazor]

21. Well, I'd hardly call it ludicrous.

Sheesh. Why's everyone so pissy 24/7?
Anyway, why shouldn't the state provide auto insurance if they're going to make you buy it?

The state owns energy (at least here in Florida). The state owns water. You pay your energy and water bills, and the state benefits.

Now given those examples, if the state is going to make you purchase something, why shouldn't they provide it?

[Beetwasher]

29. The State Isn't MAKING You Buy A Car

You may need it to get to work, but they are not MAKING you buy it. Where do you get this? Someone's FORCING you to buy a car? :eyes:

I'll bet there's plenty of people wherever you live that somehow survive w/out a car.

What the hell does paying your energy and water bills have to do w/ anything???? Water is much more a necessity than a car, you neeed it to live, and in a much more immediate and direct sense than a car. :eyes:

As far as I'm concerned, you'd make a better case for arguing that you SHOULDN'T have to pay for water (and I actually believe that anyway), before you could make a case that you shouldn't have to pay for your own car insurance. No one is MAKING you buy a car. You don't necessarily need it to live (I know you'll argue that indirectly you do, but it's not the same as water and you know it). You may think it's not optional and I certainly understand how it may seem that way, but to suggest the state is MAKING you buy a car is totally absurd. You may feel you have no option but to own a car, but the state isn't making you or mandating it. Give me a break.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

44. LOL! Err, What? It's Not My Fault You're Not Communicating Effectively

Whatever it is you want to communicate. :eyes:

Are you suggesting a complete regulation of an industry? Where did you do that? If not you, then who did that? I don't think anyone (except me) suggested anything about regulating insurance. I saw you suggesting gov't should PROVIDE everyone w/ car insurance, which is somehwat different than regulation.

Sorry you think I'm a jerk (ok, I'm not really sorry). Actually, I was trying to be an asshole, guess I'll have to try harder.

[crispini]

47. ROFL.

A day in the life of GD. :popcorn: Carry on. :hi:

[Tactical Progressive]

82. A car is a necessity

in America if you live just about anywhere outside of a city. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

Just because air and water are more necessary to your survival than a car is doesn't mean that a car isn't a necessity. What kind of logic is that? Police and courts and electricity aren't a 'necessity' on that absurd black and white scale.

I agree that insurance is a necessary burden, and I agree that insurance regulation is the proper mechanism to enable it, but in denying an obviously true premise, you simply lose the argument hands down. What's more a necessity, the car itself or the social convention of insurance to support it? People can and do drive without insurance, and we all could do it if it easily if it somehow became necessary to do so. The answer is obvious. The car is far more necessary than the insurance on the car to the functioning of society.

I think that since:
1) we don't as a society provide anywhere near sufficient public transportation infrastructure,
2) therefore making private automobile transportation an absolute necessity,
3) to which we've attached insurance as a pre-requisite, and rightly so

that government has the right and the responsibility to regulate it heavily. I think, since insurance has been made part of the package of the necessity of transportation, that basic liability insurance should be provided at just above cost to the public, like phone service is regulated. I'm guessing it's not regulated that thoroughly, and I mean to the point where the multi-million dollar salaries of insurance executives aren't charged against regulated costs to consumers.

We basically agree on the solution, without having to deny the blatantly obvious premise that an automobile is indeed a necessity in most places in this country.

[Beetwasher]

85. Obviously True Premise??? LOL!

What a load of crap. What's true for you ain't true for me and millions of others who get along fine w/ out a car. Obviously true??? Puhleeze. The mere fact that you have to qualify it w/ "if you live anywhere outside of a city" shows quite conclusively that it's NOT obviously true, it's ONLY true w/ conditions and qualifications (and even that's debatable). I believe insurance should be regulated heavily, but you're "Obviously True Premise" is a load of crap. It's no such thing and I do deny it and I lose nothing.

[Tactical Progressive]

103. Oh please

Is this what passes for logic with you? Because it's not true for you, 'and millions of others', that makes it not true for everybody? Your argument gets more ridiculous with every post. The 'mere fact' that I have to qualify the premise - with the situation that the vast majority of people exist under - isn't some exceptional condition. It's the reality for hundreds of millions of people.

Using your reasoning, to use the term broadly, since I 'and millions of others' don't need surgery or extensive medical care, therefore they aren't necessities. Well, they are for plenty of people, and when it comes to transportation by car, that's most people.

Yes, you lose. And badly at that.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tactical Progressive]

120. Seriously, you do alot of name-calling

and back it up with nothing but illogic.

Because you don't need a car, nobody does. Oh sorry, because you and millions of others don't need a car, nobody does.

You should extend that argument and see where it takes you. I guess OSHA isn't necessary since most people don't work in factories. I guess the Coast Guard isn't necessary, since most people don't have boats. I guess the police aren't necessary, since most people aren't crime victims. Maybe we don't need roads since you don't drive on them. How ridiculous are you going to get?

Your arguments are even more absurd than those because, unlike the majority inflicting their biases on the minority, which is still wrong, the majority of Americans need a car to get around and you think that the *minority* situation should be the template for their 'necessity'. Somehow, because you 'and millions of others' don't deal with that necessity, that that makes their needs 'not demonstrably true in any way'. Are you funnin' us?

Automobiles and healthcare are both necessities. Just because 'millions of people' are in situations where they can do without either of them for periods of time doesn't even slightly make your argument. We have a word for people who think that their needs are the only real needs, and the word isn't 'progressive'.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tactical Progressive]

123. I'm just quoting you

If that seems like strawmen to you, then that's because you are creating strawmen. And now you're projecting.

I can see how you can get lost in the maelstrom of your illogical rantings, even when I quote them directly, but I never said that the 'government should pay for people's car insurance'. In fact I said just the opposite right off the bat, stating that strong regulation of insurance was the way to go. We agreed on that. Learn to read. It's the insane logic you use to get there that has you tied up in knots.

You address nothing. You just rant and call names. The vast majority of people in this country need a car to get around. It would be alot more than a 'pain in the ass' for people not to have cars. Too bad if you don't like it; that's reality. Maybe you should address the point rather than name-calling.

You not having some specific need has no bearing whatsoever on whether others do. Your strawman attempts to paint your needs, 'and millions of others' as the only needs fall on their face. It's actually a disgraceful argument. You've had plenty of opportunity to address that but you wont because you know the reasoning is thoroughly unsupportable. So you blather. I guess I would too if I had to make your argument.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bake]

38. By your logic, the govt. should PROVIDE cars for all

If owning a car is not optional, it must be mandatory. Hence, the govt. should provide each citizen with one. By your logic. Not that I agree.

In fact, owning and operating a car in NYC is not only "not optional," it's damn near impossible.

Bake

[bunkerbuster1]

42. You'd rather have the flu and a car than perfect health and no wheels?

No offense, but that's pretty fucked up.

[SteppingRazor]

108. I agree. It is fucked up.

But if I get the flu, I can keep working and survive. If I don't have a car, I lose my job. I lose my job, I lose my ability to pay bills, I lose my ability to pay bills, I'm on the street.

[bunkerbuster1]

122. Oh, I was thinking it was a "perfect world" hypothetical deal.

In the real world, where you're living in a part of the world where a car is almost a necessity, that's just sad-but-true.

FWIW I could technically live without a car--there is bus service to where I work. It'd be rough, but if I were to move to some place on the bus line, I'd manage.

[Cassandra]

56. In NYC...

it's quite optional. I sold my car more than 25 years ago and if I miss having one for a day, I could rent one (if I could trust myself to remember how to drive).

[Rich Hunt]

107. yeah, well

For some other people, owning a car is not an option. Not just financially, either.

[Rich Hunt]

100. great idea

...but car insurance still doesn't prevent bad drivers or...accidents.

I'd like to see some data on car accidents. We talk about auto safety and seatbelts all of the time, but we never talk about how safe the roads are.

And what about fire prevention? I'd like to see some data on fires as well.

[crispini]

2. Oooookay.

Dude, MOST states have ALL of the laws you mention. Shit, I live in TEXAS and we have helmet laws, smoking bans, auto insurance regulations, lead paint regulations, and building codes. I don't exactly see anything that you mentioned as out of the ordinary.

[hedgehog]

5. I'd venture to guess that more people complain about regulations

in New York than Texas. Maybe there aren't more regulations and it's a myth. Maybe we just have more paperwork. I'd back any of our bureaucracies against any other state's any time.

(Edited for clarity)

[crispini]

12. Well, but you expressed interest in a cost-benefit analysis...

of lives saved by these regulations, comparing your state vs. other states... which could certainly be done... so the starting point of said cost-benefit analysis would be, first, for you to point out where, exactly, NY's regulations are more stringent than those of other states. So far, you haven't done that. All of your examples are not anything out of the ordinary.

[Beetwasher]

3. Yes! Let's Eliminate Building Codes and Lead Paint Inspections!

:eyes:

Damn nanny state!!!

[SidDithers]

6. Dumbest. Post. Ever.

Which states don't have building codes? Auto insurance requirements?

Sid

[hedgehog]

7. To hear the business groups describe it,

our regulations are driving capital out of the state.

[SidDithers]

8. Ah, there's the problem...

you're listening to business groups.

Sid

[K-W]

11. They are talking about labor and environmental regulations.

You shouldnt make such generalizations. They are talking about specific regulations that cut into thier profits. The nanny state shit is propaganda.

[Stephanie]

19. LOL!

The quintessentially dumbest post?

[trogdor]

40. I agree.

With the possible exception of helmet laws (which are pretty much universal across the 50 states), all of these requirements, laws, regs, etc., are mainly to protect CONSUMERS from INDUSTRY because industry couldn't give a microshit about consumers as long as they continue to spend money. So screw this guy and his "nanny state" nonsense.

[Cassandra]

10. Take a look at the damage from hurricanes in Florida...

in houses not built to code. They take forever to be repaired, the insurance companies bail, people sit with their houses destroyed and we subsidize then with low-interest loans to rebuild the same way.
What is it about expecting people to take some responsibility for themselves and others that you don't like? If you are uninsured and end up in the hospital because you ignored the helmet laws or smoking laws, who should pay? Do you like buildings falling down or children eating lead paint? These may be annoying but they're mostly commonsense laws.

[hedgehog]

13. I wasn't going to mention Florida building codes and inspections

but when was the last time an occupied building in Upstate New York went down from the snow load? (Abandoned 100 year old barns don't count).

[mcscajun]

23. Notable incident in a neighboring state caused more stringent NY rules

On January 18, 1978 the Hartford Arena experienced the largest snowstorm of its five-year life. At 4:15 A.M. with a loud crack the center of the arena's roof plummeted the 83-feet to the floor of the arena throwing the corners into the air. Just hours earlier the arena had been packed for a hockey game. Luckily it was empty by the time of the collapse, and no one was hurt.

In 1979, New York State's building code was strengthened to consider the impact of snow drifting and buildings designed after 1979 have more stringent snow load requirements.

Would you have it otherwise?

==================
Yet some older buildings still suffer from winter's wrath.
http://www.emergency.com/snowclps.htm

[SteppingRazor]

16. I do have a problem with helmet, smoking, and seatbelt laws...

These reflect personal choices. We should get rid of these laws entirely. At the same time, we should have universal heathcare, so the issue of cost is moot. Paint inspections, though, are a public health issue, unlike whether one person decides not to wear a helmet while on his Harley.

[Cassandra]

22. Smoking and seatbelt laws are also a public health issue...

as they can effect others. The smoking bans are to protect the employees from breathing in smoke all day and night when they're working. Seatbelt laws protect children who don't know any better. If we had universal healthcare, I'd still prefer that people not be complete idiots about preventable injuries.

[SteppingRazor]

27. I'd prefer people not be complete idiots too...

But I don't think it's the government's job to prevent them from being idiots. I'm also for drug legalization. I'm also fairly pro-gun. I kinda got a nasty libertarian streak in me ;)

[Gormy Cuss]

31. Helmet and seatbelt laws are public health issues

I wouldn't care one whit about helmet and seatbelt laws if failure to use them meant people died instantly in accidents, because it is then only a personal choice and an individual's responsibility. Both laws were promoted as saving costs by lowering the risk of injury and mortality. If accident victims who eschew these safety devices suffer debilitating injuries there is a very real risk that they will become covered by a public health or disability program. If the pencil-pushers proved that the risk is significantly higher when accident victims have not used these safety devices, it merits consideration for regulation just like other public health issues. Universal health care would not render the cost issue moot. In fact, under universal health care I would expect more restriction on behaviors known to contribute to health care costs.

The smoking laws began to take hold when the emphasis shifted from personal responsibility to responsibility for others. Smoking in offices or restaurants or other enclosed spaces raises the exposure level for nonsmokers. There are debates on how much risk is associated with this, but for workers in smoke-filled venues it has been framed as a issue of workplace safety.

Note that I'm not claiming to know the degree to which the above contentions were proven before they were used as arguments for regulation.

[alarimer]

90. Smoking laws do not reflect personal choice

Your rights end where my lungs begin. I am so sick of hearing this argument from fucking selfish smokers. They had years to inflict their nasty, cancer-causing habits on OTHER people. Now nonsmokers are finally getting some payback.

[Lorien]

126. Amen. I live in Florida and shoddy construction is a huge issue

we just don't have tough enough laws, adequate law enforcement or tough enough inspectors. Crappy construction ruins lives and sometimes results in the loss of life. "Nanny state" is a GOP word; "accountability state" might be more appropriate. If someone is acting irresponsibly, endangering lives and driving up insurance costs, then they need to be held accountable for their actions.

[Taxloss]

20. I hate the term "nanny state".

It's simply unhelpful. The RW media over here screams "nanny state! Nanny state!" the whole time, but you should hear them howl about how the legalisation of this would be bad, or how government is not protecting us from that. It's a dismal little term. What, you want to work in a building riddled with asbestos and covered in lead paint? Because I can tell you how many people have died as a result of that.

Edited to correct typo and add the word "not" before the word "protecting".

[seabeyond]

24. i bet you do. maybe that says something. repugs hate being called

greedy. so.......maybe they ought to see why they are called that. they dont like to be called stupid, maybe they ought to check out why so many say that

nanny state
nanny state

it is what it is. either say yup, cause that is what you want all our world to be., or say, will work to not be that

[Taxloss]

25. I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that not liking the term nanny state is to be greedy and stupid?

[K-W]

28. Nanny State is a propaganda term.

It is a frame that grossly mischarecterizes liberal governance.

[seabeyond]

30. i disagree. i feels just like

me, 35, outside in 50 degree weather and my mom telling me to go put my coat on. and me saying, no.

[K-W]

34. Nanny State is one of the biggest conservative terms of all time.

I am not saying that there arent some laws where the nanny analogy isnt appropriate, but for those instances you would do best to find a term or analogy that isnt also a term conservatives use to smear liberals.

[seabeyond]

46. reason would be a cool thing. but too much i see on this board

resort to nanny mentality. i cant help it. i suggest we not, but tooooo many people chose this. so i call it. i am not going to lie about something and pretend it isnt there. that is what repugs do and look at the mess. the better is to own it, admit it, acknowledge it. many people that want to vote dem, dont.....because of this. something to at least address. not ignore

now when they say we are weak on military. i have factual information that is contradictive to that term and i challenge it. when they say liberal is anti christian, i can argue. when they say feminist bad,.....my horns show

when they call us a nanny party, i say yes......and it pisses me off

[hedgehog]

52. What exactly pisses you off , the name or what it describes?,

[seabeyond]

57. i dont care about a name. that is my point

those opposing using the name are the ones with an issue with the name. it is even being suggested that yes we are, but not use the name because it is a repug thing. i dont have issue with name

see

nanny
nanny

i dont have issue with liberal or feminist either

i am a overprotective mother. i know what it is. i also listen. that is not what we dems do. we know the right way and tell people to shut up.

[K-W]

59. Im sorry you have bought into propaganda.

Cant you see that there are way, way, way more people on the right who support nanny state laws than on the left?

Cant you see that conservatives just take advantage of these issues to smear liberalism which has nothing whatsoever to do with it and that you are feeding into that propaganda by spreading around thier frame and insisting we aknowledge it as true?

We have a large and diverse language, surely you can make your point without reinforcing conservative propaganda. There is simply no reason to use thier langauge unless you want to spread thier message.

[seabeyond]

65. yes i can see the repugs doing it. and if you look thru my posts

on christian manipulation i think you will find i clearly see this and particpate in my person life. being in panhandle of texas, baptist community. i see it in many ways. as i have suggested above. i brougt in feminism and liberal specifically to show i do see what the repug is doing. so i think it is clear i havent bought into. i agree with the repugs. i do see a nanny state on this board. i dont like it. i get to speak out against it. isnt individuality adn diversity a wonderful thing

[K-W]

73. "i agree with the repugs" indeed you do.

And the fact that you refuse to seperate yourself from thier propaganda discredits you immensly. You could, if you wanted to, make a rational point about the minority on this forum who you disagree with about certain policies, but instead you resort to conservative generalizations.

[seabeyond]

78. that is what you create for me. seems the only way you

can see this is thru "republican propaganda" ergo eliminating any admission of said issue.

i have experienced it thru out life, with many different people in their own personal experience. on the one hand, i tell these people i love, you created, you did not walk the perfect line, and now you suffer repercussion
'
on the other hand, i see my fellow dem in such harsh and extreme judgement, and being about perfect myself i say, i know how easy it is to do this, but, .....i chose not

now if you are telling me this is following repug line, i suggest you are not being open, because

this is full of nuance and repugs cant do. only black and white for them

[K-W]

89. I have created nothing for you.

Im not even sure what that means.

seems the only way you can see this is thru "republican propaganda" ergo eliminating any admission of said issue.

No you are the one clinging to the republican propaganda. I am urging you to discuss this issue in more informative terms that dont reinforce right wing talking points.

now if you are telling me this is following repug line, i suggest you are not being open, because

this is full of nuance and repugs cant do. only black and white for them

I really cant understand most of your post, but if you are accusing me of black and white thinking, I think you need to invest in a mirror. You are the one defending the republican black and white casting of dems as nanny staters.

I am trying to get you to see the nuance of the issue, but you insist on using the republican black and white frame.

[seabeyond]

72. btw, this means, i will also stand with the atheist, the gay

the persons rights in an airport or to stand on the side of the road and demonstrate, the right to speak out. the right to be. i will stand for the right to own gun, to smoke, to not smoke, to not wear a seatbelt or helmet, or to be able to vote. birthcontrol pill or abortion.

i am useful, in my ways, even when i am going after the dem cause, like, no smoking in our own car, using a cell phone or outlaw spanking.

i wont be a hypocrit anyway

[K-W]

76. The dem cause?... Give me a break. EOM

[seabeyond]

79. a break, you can take a break whenever you want

i dont need to give you one, lol

[K-W]

91. Its a saying. EOM

[SidDithers]

35. Yeah, those building code laws...

exactly like your mom telling you to wear your mittens.

:crazy:

Sid

[seabeyond]

49. ya right, youa re open to thought

not

that is fine. ignore it

[SidDithers]

63. I usually do ignore it...

however, some arguments are just so ridiculous that the temptation to reply is overwhelming.

I'll try harder to resist next time.

Sid

[seabeyond]

66. ah so dismiss me as ridiculous. makes it so easy, wink n/t

[SidDithers]

71. Not you...

I respect and admire you. I've read your posts and the passion with which you state your beliefs is commendable.

However, on this topic, your argument is worthy of ridicule.

:toast:

Sid

[seabeyond]

75. i beg to differ. ridicule is never productive

but that is ok.

and thank you

[Taxloss]

36. The fact it "feels" that way is the reason it is such an effective frame.

It is a term design for conservatives who want nothing but relentless deregulation - employment law, health and safety, building safety, environment, you name it. Those protections that the left worked long and hard for are belittled by the term "nanny state".

[seabeyond]

51. that is the bitch of it. we want to protect the vital important things

that is why i get so bothered. there are important balance we have to do. but i suggest the democrats arent being balanced. they are being extreme. adn in their extremism, we are going to lose the important stuff. cause in our extremism, we give away our authority on the subject

it is sad to me

doesnt have to be.

[Taxloss]

70. Some minor bits of legislation are sometime unnecessary or mollycoddling.

None spring to mind at the moment, but I've certainly heard of a couple of things that sound excessive. But I objected to the term "nanny state" which is used as a blanket to cover hundreds of pieces of very important and valuable legislation, and you called me a "repug" for doing so, which I think was a little harsh.

[seabeyond]

81. i dont normally call people names, so was surprised to learn

from your post i called you a repug. i went back and re read my post, to see if i called you a repug. cause, like i say, that is so not me. you know what

i didnt call you a repug

you are funny

[Taxloss]

93. I must have misread your post.

[mcscajun]

26. You may say that helmet laws "protect us from ourselves"

but the rest of your examples protect us from the actions or inaction, in some cases, downright negligence or greed of others.

Nearly all of the examples you cite are public safety laws that, with the exception of smoking bans, exist in nearly every state in the country.

[hedgehog]

32. I like living in a Nanny state

Our legislature is constantly banning this toy or requiring that inspection or this license. Sorry that I can't come up with anything else besides the fireworks ban off the top of my head. I was just wondering if anyone knew of an actual comparison of costs vs benefits. It'd would be nice to be able to defend our way of looking at things. Generally speaking, New York seems to try to learn from the experience of others rather than requiring each individual citizen to face the school of hard knocks.

[mcscajun]

37. Why is anyone here adopting the RW term "nanny state"?

:wtf:

Framing, people...framing.

Responsible governance should not be ridiculed as 'nannying'.

Stupid laws exist in every state, and should be ridiculed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, or buy into RW Propaganda.

[hedgehog]

41. It's a way of turning a disparaging term into a boast

[K-W]

43. Its impossible.

The nanny frame is inherently negative because it casts the people as children.

[mcscajun]

53. Agreed...it's just as useless an effort as black people using the "N" word

to recast it.

[hedgehog]

55. Or like gays using the "q" word - Oh, wait.....

[mcscajun]

58. Um..not quite the same thing.

The "N" word comes with a few hundred years of baggage.

[hedgehog]

87. OK, we need a new positive name - got any ideas?

You're right, a new name would fit the sound bite culture we live in.

[mcscajun]

104. Simple: the Progressive State.

The Empire State (which will always be my 'home' even while I'm in exile in NJ) deserves nothing less.

[hedgehog]

110. I love it!

But then, I'm easy. Besides, Wisconsin will probably try to claim it.

[Tactical Progressive]

113. civic responsibility

As in 'You call civic responsibility a nanny-state? Don't you believe in America, or is it all just about what makes your life easier?'

The people who like to cast their self-serving attitudes as self-reliance would collapse into anger and resentment if even a small part of the protection and support that this society provides them were taken away.

They're typically the same people who are angry and resentful of anybody else's needs being met by society.

[crispini]

45. You are using the conservative frame when you use

the term "nanny state." If you use their language, you let them dictate the terms of the conversation. "Nanny state" implies regulation out of control. Rush loves that term. Don't use it -- find something else.

And we have a fireworks ban in urban areas too, FWIW. Nothing that you've cited would be considered "unreasonable."

[ibegurpard]

50. So, you can't really come up with anything

and yet you live in the "nanny state." Way to accept the propaganda.

[hedgehog]

54. As I asked above, if the term doesn't apply, why is NYS

stuck with the label?

[ibegurpard]

60. Because anti-regulation big-business has been busy pumping

that piece of propaganda into the public consciousness for years. It obviously worked with you.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

61. You left out Rush.

Limbaugh loves calling New York State the "Nanny State".
Considering we have even more stringent laws in Minnesota, I wonder why he hasn't piped up about us?
:shrug:
(Maybe it's because New York is "full of liberals" according to him)

[hedgehog]

68. I've thought of something else.

Is it my imagination, or does NYS have a better (I said better, not great or even good) system of taking care of those in trouble. I'm thinking of publicly financed nursing homes, child protection services, Infant and Nursing mother nutrition programs etc. I'm sure there have been some spectacular screw-ups, but I don't hear about foster children going missing or children known to be at risk who end up murdered.

[mcscajun]

101. One notable murder in NYS directly led to improved protection

for all children in NYS...the Lisa Steinberg case.

She was 6 years old when she was beaten to death by her "father" who had illegally adopted her after accepting $500 from the birth mother as payment to place the child for adoption.

At the time, neighbors, school teachers, and co-workers had all ignored signs of abuse, all afraid of getting involved. After the case was resolved with the conviction of Joel Steinberg, New York mandated abuse awareness programs for those licensed to work with children. Reforms followed in many states.

Footnote: Steinberg served the mandatory two thirds of his 25-year sentence for manslaughter, and was released on parole last year. Lisa Steinberg would have been 24 today.

If you haven't heard of too much lately (and I'm sure there have been cases not picked up by our Corporate Media) this is why.

[hedgehog]

62. Well then, why has antiregulation big business targeted NYS?

[Beetwasher]

67. You Need To Ask?

NYS is where the biggest business happens, so of course "big businees" would want to deregulate it as much as possible. Thankfully we have good men like Elliot Spitzer to hold them accountable.

You sound like one of those insane anti-Elliot Spitzer whackos who are pissed off because he's cleaning up the State from all it's corrupt insurance/finance dickheads who were screwing everyone out millions and are now getting their comeuppance. We need more "nanny's" like Elliot Spitzer.

[hedgehog]

74. Absolutely

I'm sorry that I'm not clear enough when I say that I love NYS's way of life. It's just that we suffer the death of a thousand cuts from right wing critics as they nit pick. I'm really asking for something solid that proves we're on the right track. It's got to be out there somewhere.
For example -

Critic- NYS taxes are higher than in State X



Answer - NYS has 35 (or whatever number) library books per capita, state X has 2

[Beetwasher]

80. We Dont' Suffer Anything Because Of The Critics

Who cares what some blowhards have to say? I don't.

You want something that "Prove's" we're on the right track???? Who cares?

Ok, just for the record, most of NYS federal taxes go to OTHER states as Red State Welfare. Look it up. The states that get the MOST federal tax money (or Nanny Money if you prefer) are so-called "Red States" or the welfare states as I like to call them and they're the one's who complain the most about that sort of crap. Meanwhile, NY, home of 9/11 gets LESS per capita homeland security money than places like Wyoming. Go figure.

[hedgehog]

84. OK, you're just saying that so I don't have to.

And here I was trying to be polite to out of staters so they couldn't accuse New Yorkers of being rude.

[Beetwasher]

88. Huh?

What are you talking about??

[hedgehog]

97. We New Yorkers know we're carrying the red states on our backs

We just try to be polite and not mention it because Red Staters tend to be so sensitive about it.

[Beetwasher]

64. I live In NY and I've Never Heard Of NY Being "Stuck" W/ That Label

So WTF are you talking about?

You listen to too Rightwing bullshit propoganda.

Nanny States are states that come into your bedroom and tell you how to have sex, who you can marry and how you can die. That don't happen here in NY.

[mcscajun]

102. I'm with you...I spent all of my formative years, a total of 38, in NYS

and I never heard it described by Democratic natives as a 'nanny state'.

Rush Limbaugh loves the term, though.

[Gyre]

33. Cause of "Nanny State" are whores for politicians

who pass assinine laws to get their names in the papers as "protectors of the people". The result is so many laws that they never get enforced or, if the police state turns ugly, you can get busted for anything. It really sucks.

California has got to be a close second on this.:(

Gyre

[Trekologer]

69. But who is running the government?

New York has had a Republican governor and New York City has had Republican mayors for the last 10+ years.

[hedgehog]

77. And one of our Republican Governors was Teddy Roosevelt

who I believe had a large influence on the national park system and food safety regulations. It's a New York thing.

[LeftyMom]

83. We have all those things in California too.

Seems like all the places that don't have those laws are full of people who want to move to places that do.

[hedgehog]

86. Hey - as a New Yorker I say we can beat California any day.

Just check out our state University system vs. what's left of California's. Thirty years ago they were neck and neck. As an aside, my son wanted to know why anyone would pay tuition for a private college. I reminded him that not everyone lives in NYS.

[LeftyMom]

96. I don't want to debate which state is better

I was just pointing out that both are percieved as desirable places to live and that New York's insurance requirements, helmet laws and such are not unique.

[hedgehog]

99. But the very things that make NYS state attractive have been

turned around by the RW to make our state unattractive.

[CWebster]

92. Government should concern itself with the best interests of the

citizenry. "Get gubbermint off our backs" was a scam to deregulate corporate interests--which are now as powerful--if not the gubbermint itself. See where that battle cry done brung us?

[hedgehog]

95. OK, now you're talking like a New Yorker!

Are you from here? Maybe a long ago ancestor?

Edited for punctuation.

[CWebster]

105. Who hasn't passed through?

Yes, my great Grandmother lived on 5th Avenue.

[Pithlet]

98. Those laws protect us from others.

I personally love it that contractors have to keep my safety in mind when they build public spaces. I also love being protected from smoke in public places. None of those laws are protecting me from myself, but protecting me from others who would love nothing more than to have those laws removed so they don't have to worry about facing the consequences if they harm me.

Nanny state, indeed.

Editd to remove passive aggressive snark. Bad Pithlet.

[wli]

109. 98% of prisoners in New York are in Republican Senate districts

They're used to artificially boost small towns' populations for electoral "prisonmandering."

[hedgehog]

111. One drawback to living here is our state constitution that

allows such prisonmandering. I guess that also explains why we still have Rockefeller's drug laws on the books.

[wli]

125. it doesn't seem to be limited to New York

There's some info about it here.