the Nanny State

[medhead]

a 'nanny state' exists because there are so many 'adults' who wont take responsibility (like children) for their (often illegal) actions:evil:...actions come with consequences.., but the general public turn to the govt/authorities to 'fix' EVERYTHING...but in the same breath the general public feel they are being 'nannied':shock:...govts/authorities do the best they can...BUT ITS ALSO UP TO SOCIETY TO DO THEIR PART TOO!!! and stop behaving like children!!!

I had an interesting conversation today with someone who wants some law made tougher because people are doing something completely stupid. When I delved into the existing laws it turns out that the people weren't even following those laws. It seemed that the person asking for the change wasn't even trying to make them follow the existing laws. I didn't know how making the law tougher was going to fix the problem.

 

[JohnK]

And in relation to drink driving, it's interesting that hands free calls is just as dangerous as drink driving, yet that hasn't been banned.

Is that also a sign of people going overboard with use of any gadgets?

 

[drron]

One that really is stupid is the random drug tests for drivers.EG for cannabis the test detects that you have had it but possibly days before.No way that that can mean you are driving under the influence.At the very least a quantitative test is needed with a level fixed that would reasonably mean you were under the influence.
By no means am I advocating that no drug testing is done but there must be some basis for it as a means of reducing road accidents.

 

[Warks]

I had an interesting conversation today with someone who wants some law made tougher because people are doing something completely stupid. When I delved into the existing laws it turns out that the people weren't even following those laws. It seemed that the person asking for the change wasn't even trying to make them follow the existing laws. I didn't know how making the law tougher was going to fix the problem.

Agreed. An unenforced law is no law at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But should government be protecting people from their laziness?

Yes.

That's why we enjoy some of the best consumer protections of anywhere in the world. Buying a car or the way I vote... why not afford me the same level protection?

That 'protection' might vary depending on the circumstances - it might be as little as having more information available up-front, or it might be something much stronger where the government steps in on my behalf.

But all the same, if we are to be protected from each other, small business and big business - why not from political happenings? Did voters really think that .5% of the vote would elect a Senator? 'Today' - yes we know it can. But did we really know that at the last election? Can we do anything about it now? I dunno, I haven't seen the available information and what it looks like in trying to explain preference votes.

The choice is still there to elect the Motoring Party for those who want to, but I'm not really opposed to bringing some 'protections' (I use that word loosely) into the equation.

 

[medhead]

Yes.

That's why we enjoy some of the best consumer protections of anywhere in the world. Buying a car or the way I vote... why not afford me the same level protection?

That 'protection' might vary depending on the circumstances - it might be as little as having more information available up-front, or it might be something much stronger where the government steps in on my behalf.

But all the same, if we are to be protected from each other, small business and big business - why not from political happenings? Did voters really think that .5% of the vote would elect a Senator? 'Today' - yes we know it can. But did we really know that at the last election? Can we do anything about it now? I dunno, I haven't seen the available information and what it looks like in trying to explain preference votes.

The choice is still there to elect the Motoring Party for those who want to, but I'm not really opposed to bringing some 'protections' (I use that word loosely) into the equation.

the information is there when you vote, it is available! provided you're not too lazy to check that info. You have the protection, and as I've opinioned the proposed change do not make the preference process any easier to understand. In that regard there is no difference.

Now the car is an interesting one. My last purchased car (second hand), well I've always thought there was something a bit wrong with it. Turns out after someone drove into me the repairer says the car was previously in a crash. Now I was too lazy to ask the dealer whether the car had been in an accident previously. So I had consumer protections, but I was too lazy to check out the info. Therefore, there is nothing I can do about the crash thing. There is nothing to protect me from my laziness. (I suspect the car has been rebirthed)