Interesting discussion with a co-worker about "Nanny State" policies.
It started with motorcycle helmets. Here in Michigan we used to have a "require to wear helmets" for the motorcycle crowd, but it was recently changed.
I do not support the change. I am technically a "pro-Nanny State" person because I support protecting people from their own stupidity (as in "not wearing a helmet"
. Please Note: I do not ride, but have friends and family who do, and I support their right to ride and be treated with respect while using the road, but the "helmet less" folk scare me spitless. Lol!
My co-worker does ride, and he does wear a helmet, but he is *against* anyone "forcing him" to wear one. He is "anti-Nanny State" and we were able to have an awesome discussion about the topic.
It got me thinking about the differences in our philosophies, and I am interested in the thoughts of others on DU about the "pro/anti" Nanny State worldviews.
I personally wonder if my "nurturing, maternal, protective" instincts - where I basically spend a good portion of my life protecting the young of our species from making stupid, potentially fatal mistakes - accounts for some of my "yes, we need to protect as many people as possible from self-inflicted stupidity" versus the attitude of many folk (including my beloved husband and this good friend) that "stupidity should be painful, with persistent stupidity being fatal and a good way to keep the gene pool clean" (usually said in a humorous "Darwin Award" way) might account for some of the differences?
Our discussion today touched on seat belts, cell phones, air bags and drunk drivers; I brought up consumer safety issues (cribs that kill!). We talked about how he felt his kids could make decisions for themselves / he'd trained them not to be stupid once they left his house, and I talked about the fact I expect teenagers / young adults to be unaware of their own mortality and requiring reasonable guidance because of their belief in their own immortality, and thus being totally okay with "nanny-stating" them as much as possible within reasonable guidelines (see: motorcycle helmets and seat belts as part of my definition).
I really like policies that keep more people alive and healthy, even if the people involved are stupid (or young or inexperienced or whatever). I also think reasonable people can find common ground between "that seems like a good idea" or "okay, demanding everyone wear padding to protect them from life's boo-boos is a little over the top."
Thoughts? 
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think part of it is our own gut reaction; part of it taps in to whether we are "globally" empathetic (for the greater good); part of it is which specific things each of us do that are on the edge, less acceptable (as my friends and I often say, each of us is a hypocrite about something or multiple things - we obey law X, but break lay Y - say, the speed limit - and can find all sorts of justifications as to why it i OK for us to do so for each of these). So kind of the "selective libertarian" - which, again, I suspect each of us as a teeny streak about, depending upon what specifically it is about.
think about the discussion topics that get the dander up on DU - smoking, guns, just to name a few. The various views cross political lines, which is why they stand out so for us here - it is easy to rally Dems against Cruz....but not to much a personal life choice - whether it is or isn't against a "law", whether on the books, societal norm, etc.
Lots to ponder in your OP - thanks...hope I didn't muddy the waters!
because it picks up the inconsistencies of each of our choices - so there is no one size fits all way to go that works for everyone - this is what makes it messy!
It is also a startlingly open and vulnerable thing, to admit to which particular "rules" we do or don't break - my friends and I have had very interesting discussions around all of this - and each of us over the years spot the inconsistencies in each of our many arguments, positions or life choices!
I am like you, I guess - I am one of those "we are all born with a clean slate and the world is full of wonders and we should each maximize our potential for both its enjoyment and longevity" types, I suppose - tend to think in terms of "health first"....yet I will be the first to admit that the speed limit on most roads is too low....so there you go!
Now I need to retrieve my brain from these fascinating deep thought topics and go get something done!
There is one of those little tabloid papers around here -- every town probably has them -- advertising crappy jobs like temporary warehouse work, cab driving, etc., plus those for-profit schools that offer to make you a practical nurse or a pharmacy tech in a few months. But I digress. Anyway, all of those crappy jobs seem to have one thing in common: they require drug testing. Now, if some poor schmuck doing heavy lifting at the local Amazon fulfillment center has to take a drug test, why not the ones in DC? After all, if the schmuck at Amazon is smoking a little weed on his breaks, the worst that is likely to happen is that some customer gets a wrong order. Those clowns in DC just cost the US economy $24 billion. 
What a terrible story! The "it won't happen to ME" syndrome at its finest.
My vote is no. Other folks believe differently. And frankly, some of the stupidest people on the planet eventually get smarter as they get older.
That is what I am wondering.
And I had never heard of Mill's Harm policy. It sounds fascinating. Would you mind expanding on some of the discussion that goes along with it?
unhealthy eating impacts us due to increase health costs. I don't know the answer...but in all of these and many other cases that cross political lines, the dialog around the possibilities has no end....
That level of STUPID -- ARGH!!!
There is always a trade off between maximizing social benefit and maximizing negative freedom for individuals. For me there must be a compelling goal that pays real social benefits before considering those regulation. General public health fits that framework. Secondly, action/regulation regarding the perceived problem must, as directly as is possible, benefit those most vulnerable to the risky behavior. Helmets certainly fit that as well. Third, it should not be constructed so as to be punishment for the risky behavior but rather enhances the wellbeing of those participating members and the society at large. Helmets work here too.
However, there are a number of areas where there are lots of regulation and prohibition that I think breaks these rules. What immediately comes to mind are our attitudes and policies on addiction. Because there is a heavy moral component to the behaviors around addiction there is a natural tendency to punish the participants in the name of the compelling goal of public health. Rarely does this result in the social benefit we desire.
Certainly this is not an exhaustive framework but it works well for broad overviews... at least for me.
I like a lot of what you say!!!
