The nanny state: Why we need it

  • Article by: SARAH CONLY
  • Updated: March 26, 2013 - 7:51 PM

Why do we resist being told what to do, if being told what to do will serve the greater good?

  • 152
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
stcroixdiverMar. 26, 13 7:30 PM

LOL, Give me a break.

jbpaperMar. 26, 13 7:54 PM

Sorry, not convinced that we need a nanny state.

jarlmnMar. 26, 13 8:01 PM

Trouble is that the "harm principle," especially in a society that has the duality of being risk-adverse and litigiously-entitled, the definition of acceptable risk and of individual responsibility, has become pretty darned squishy. Thus, to the greater joy of Conly and her collectivist ilk, we are increasingly willing to give up our freedoms for the mere illusion of safety and well-being. "For the greater good," and if "if saves just ONE child," we will all end-up locked in a padded playpen and sanctimonious folks like Conly will have the only key.

unclemushyMar. 26, 13 8:08 PM

We resist it because the nanny state is not going to stop with soft drinks, firearms and tobacco. They want complete control although they will deny it all day long. These elitist think so poorly of their constituents that they truly believe they are not capable of taking care of themselves. They need to have an underclass and need to keep their flock dependent on government to maintain their position of power and control.

cGeeMar. 26, 13 9:00 PM

Well said, unclemushy! Remember that nanny state liberalism is all about creating Utopia and feeling good, regardless if the result of the legislation takes away choices and thus freedoms. Where in the Constitution does it say you are to be protected from over-sized soft drinks? The slippery slope of “nannyism” proves that this is all about control, nothing else.

unclemushyMar. 26, 13 9:03 PM

What I really find amusing is that liberals demand that government stay out of our bedrooms but are more than OK with them interfering in every other aspect of our lives.

myob_STMar. 26, 13 9:22 PM

cGee, I think the author would say that the clause regarding 'provid[ing] for the general welfare' would be the place in the Constitution where it says we're to be protected from oversized drinks.

kilofoxMar. 26, 13 9:30 PM

It's amazing that Lib's always seem to think they know what is best for us. We are too stupid to think for ourselves, we must have the state hold our hand and decide what is best for us. What's next,forcing people to put training wheels on their bikes so they tip over less.

ruphinaMar. 26, 13 9:36 PM

Oh MY Bleeping God! "In the old days, we used to blame people for acting imprudently — since their bad choices were their fault, they deserved to suffer the consequences. Now we see that these errors aren’t a function of bad character, but of our shared cognitive inheritance. The proper reaction is not blame, but an impulse to help one another." Absolutely unbelievable! Talk about pure LALALalaland! Of course it is still your fault. Idiots like the writer TELLING people it isn't are the CAUSE of these kind of problems. Sounds to me like the writer is just drumming up reasons for the "elite" to control others. Just a simple power grab. Bill G.

garagewineMar. 26, 1311:01 PM

"What this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis: If it’s too painful, it’s not a good law."---Now who is being naive? When was the last time a regulation was propagated on the basis of benefit-cost considerations?


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters