What is wrong with the nanny state?

[cynic]

You betcha!

Face it, such laws do nothing to keep criminals from getting guns. And the last 20 or so years, where state after state has adopted “shall issue” laws, allowing all honest citizens to go armed has proven it.
.

Repetition, not honest argument seems to be your forte. How could you possibly reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals? Make it illegal to sell to unlicensed individuals, at the point of sale in a store, or second hand (one way). Criminals won’t obey the law, but honest citizens making the sales will.

But l’ve posted that several times.

The difference is, I use facts, you may not like them, but they are facts.

I’m sorry, was this response intended for the paragraph you quoted? Your ‘facts’ don’t even include a link to their source.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

What is wrong with the welfare, nanny, managerial state? I thought those were examples of social justice because they adequately care for the vulnerable in society.

I am sure this discussion has gone well beyond the original question by now, but my thinking is that ideally it is not a bad idea and to be sure there are many who cannot adequately provide for themselves and need help. In practice however the nanny state has never worked and is almost destined to fail. The incentive provided to otherwise able bodied people to not work is too great. There is also a corrupting factor towards the politicians creating these programs in that the more dependents that can be created by these programs, the more people there will be that feel compelled to vote for them lest their benefits be taken away. Therefore the incentive for politicians is to make it easier for as many people as possible to become dependent on some sort of social welfare program.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am sure this discussion has gone well beyond the original question by now, but my thinking is that ideally it is not a bad idea and to be sure there are many who cannot adequately provide for themselves and need help. In practice however the nanny state has never worked and is almost destined to fail. The incentive provided to otherwise able bodied people to not work is too great. There is also a corrupting factor towards the politicians creating these programs in that the more dependents that can be created by these programs, the more people there will be that feel compelled to vote for them lest their benefits be taken away. Therefore the incentive for politicians is to make it easier for as many people as possible to become dependent on some sort of social welfare program.

Actually, your point is a good one.

In fact, one could slightly expand the discussion by changing the word “nanny” to the word “bureaucratic” … so the question becomes “what is wrong with the bureaucratic state”.

That’s what we are really talking about … converting our reliance on self on one another and on God into a reliance on a “one size fits all bureaucracy”.

I mean … like … what does bureaucracy do? They fill out forms, enjoy generous fringe benefits and annual salary cost of living increases and ample vacations … things that most folks don’t have. They peruse carefully (a redundancy) government manuals on how to fill out forms. They parse words. They stay in their cubicles and avoid field trips, lest they be criticized for leaving their cubicles and lest they actually see something that conflicts with the world view that they obtain from their cubicles.

And sometimes they count ceiling tiles to make sure that their cubicle meets size standards. [No joke.]

And the write memos sometimes, that are intended to prevent folks from relying on self, on one another and on God.

No bureaucrat has ever designed a successful airplane [Langley tried, in competition with the Wrights, but he failed at great expense] … instead the bureaucrats rely on things like the Skunk Works … except when the bureaucrats interfere by writing specifications that they are not technically qualified to do.

Nor has any bureaucrat ever increased oil supply by one barrel … or the gasoline supply by one gallon.

Etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m glad you finally answered my question.

Now. How would you make it difficult?
Bear in mind, as long as there are guns allowed anywhere the criminal will have access.
Given that, how do you keep the pulic protected and the guns out of the picture?

Even if guns are not allowed, criminals will have them. After all, illegal drugs are not allowed, but they are everywhere.

 

[vz71]

Even if guns are not allowed, criminals will have them. After all, illegal drugs are not allowed, but they are everywhere.

True…But I was hoping the cynic here could be stepped around his circular logic and shown the circle for what it is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Repetition, not honest argument seems to be your forte.

Repetition, not honest argument or facts seems to be your forte.

How could you possibly reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals? Make it illegal to sell to unlicensed individuals, at the point of sale in a store, or second hand (one way). Criminals won’t obey the law, but honest citizens making the sales will.

But it is **already **illegal for criminals to buy guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

True…But I was hoping the cynic here could be stepped around his circular logic and shown the circle for what it is.

I recommend you read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. Logic and facts play no part in some people’s arguments.

 

[Wolseley]

True…But I was hoping the cynic here could be stepped around his circular logic and shown the circle for what it is.

He has nothing to worry about. All he has to do is never come to the violent old United States—he should stay in England, where No One Has Guns, And Things Are Safe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Once again,I ask; “People who like a nanny state are people who believe they need a nanny. They believe they cannot manage their own affairs, support themselves, or protect themselves.”

So how come they believe they are qualified to advise us on how to manage our affairs?

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

But unless I am mistaken, you have already said it isn’t the government’s business to prevent

crime. So why do something that would be expensive, intrusive, ineffective – all for the purpose of doing what you say the government should not do?

It’s a matter of busting illegal activity which is dangerous to society,which the government should do anyway,not specifically preventing common criminals from committing violent crimes. The prevention of violent crimes from happening would be the after-effect. The governmet has a duty to prevent crime in general,in the abstract,through law and order. The government goes after the Mafia and other criminal organizations,and no-one but the criminals has a problem with that. So why should law-abiding citizens have a problem with the government going after the underground gun market and the intermediaries? If you want to sell a gun but have doubts about the person who wants to buy it,just don’t sell it to him. Sell it only to someone you can trust won’t use it criminally.

If violent criminals should be prosecuted for trying to buy guns,the people who sell guns to violent criminals should also be prosecuted.

Now, if you like, I can give you a good outline of how we should direct our efforts if the intention is to reduce violent crimes committed with guns (assuming you accept that as a legitimate goal of government.)

Go ahead.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s a matter of busting illegal activity,which the government should do anyway,not specifically preventing common criminals from committing violent crimes.

Then why do you oppose the government busting illegal activity – like felons lying on the application form to buy a firearm, or carrying firearms in the commission of crimes, or simultaneous possession of guns and drugs?

The prevention of violent crimes from happening would be the after-effect. The governmet has a duty to prevent crime in general,in the abstract,through law and order. The government goes after the Mafia and other criminal organizations,and no-one but the criminals has a problem with that. So why should law-abiding citizens have a problem with the government going after the underground gun market and the intermediaries?

Because the government won’t do that!

I’d love it if the government would prosecute felons for lying on the application form to buy a firearm, or carrying firearms in the commission of crimes, or simultaneous possession of guns and drugs

If you want to sell a gun but have doubts about the person who wants to buy it,just don’t sell it to him. Sell it only to someone you can trust won’t use it criminally.

That’s already the law!!

The government just won’t prosecute people who are turned down for firearms purchases.

If violent criminals should be prosecuted for trying to buy guns,the people who sell guns to violent criminals should also be prosecuted.

That’s** already** the law!

Go ahead.

GUN CONTROL

The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.

Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.

That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable gun control, based on three principles:

 Targeting. The purpose of gun control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.

 Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.

 Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.

We target the violent criminal through two laws;

1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

1. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal

We target the violent criminal by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.

We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.

A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.

If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.

We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.

They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.

They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.

And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Actually, your point is a good one.

In fact, one could slightly expand the discussion by changing the word “nanny” to the word “bureaucratic” … so the question becomes “what is wrong with the bureaucratic state”.

That’s what we are really talking about … converting our reliance on self on one another and on God into a reliance on a “one size fits all bureaucracy”.

I mean … like … what does bureaucracy do? They fill out forms, enjoy generous fringe benefits and annual salary cost of living increases and ample vacations … things that most folks don’t have. They peruse carefully (a redundancy) government manuals on how to fill out forms. They parse words. They stay in their cubicles and avoid field trips, lest they be criticized for leaving their cubicles and lest they actually see something that conflicts with the world view that they obtain from their cubicles.

And sometimes they count ceiling tiles to make sure that their cubicle meets size standards. [No joke.]

And the write memos sometimes, that are intended to prevent folks from relying on self, on one another and on God.

No bureaucrat has ever designed a successful airplane [Langley tried, in competition with the Wrights, but he failed at great expense] … instead the bureaucrats rely on things like the Skunk Works … except when the bureaucrats interfere by writing specifications that they are not technically qualified to do.

Nor has any bureaucrat ever increased oil supply by one barrel … or the gasoline supply by one gallon.

Etc.

Balderdash. Bureaucracy may be an ugly thing, but it is necessary if a society is to function. How do you expect to get your insurance claim paid unless someones processes it? As much as you hate the DMV, you know that it’s necessary, otherwise, you won’t have a driver license or car registration. No, bureaucracy isn’t there to be innovative, it’s there to get a specific job (whatever that may be) done in a way that is equal for everyone who needs the job done. The rules that bureaucrats have to follow aren’t made up by the bureaucrats and that is frustrating to many in the bureaucracy because, believe it or not, the people on the front line of providing service kinda know what is needed to get the job done.

But let’s just ignore those facts and blame the people who are doing the work for being lazy, do nothing slugs who watch the clock all day.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Balderdash. Bureaucracy may be an ugly thing, but it is necessary if a society is to function. How do you expect to get your insurance claim paid unless someones processes it? As much as you hate the DMV, you know that it’s necessary, otherwise, you won’t have a driver license or car registration. No, bureaucracy isn’t there to be innovative, it’s there to get a specific job (whatever that may be) done in a way that is equal for everyone who needs the job done. The rules that bureaucrats have to follow aren’t made up by the bureaucrats and that is frustrating to many in the bureaucracy because, believe it or not, the people on the front line of providing service kinda know what is needed to get the job done.

But let’s just ignore those facts and blame the people who are doing the work for being lazy, do nothing slugs who watch the clock all day.

Well, we really don’t need bureaucrats.

Think about it.

In your post, you referred to clerical functions.

More and more of those paperpushing functions are being eliminated. A mechanic can fill out a repair estimate form directly into a computer and if it is within guidelines, it is approved on the spot. Ditto, medical claims. Ditto motor vehicle renewals.

Ditto selling train tickets.

Ditto keypunching tax returns into the IRS computer.

But even so, it is not the clerical functions we are talking about.

What we are talking about is where judgment is needed that bureaucracy breaks down.

For example, 9/11 could have been prevented, but FBI bureaucrats refused to let the field office look at the hard drive of a suspect who had been arrested.

It is when the DMV makes a clerical typographical error that is obvious, but the bureaucrats are too frightened of criticism to correct the error.

It is when there are obvious problems in their area of responsibility, but fixing the problems requires some recognition that standard operating procedures don’t work and some original thought is needed. And they just outright refuse. Why? “Because somebody might say something.” [Actual quote.]

Think of all the bureaucratic functions that have run amok. FAA bureaucrats who will shut down an airline if the file folders aren’t perfect to their standards. And yet the FAA bureaucrats are about 50 years behind on the technology of air traffic control. Third world nations are buying current state-of-the-art ATC hardware and software from catalogs … but our bureaucrats want to write specs from scratch that they are not qualified to write. They direct consultants and vendors to write things a certain way even though what the want doesn’t work. Meanwhile the bills mount up into the billions and the years slide by.

The FAA worked for decades on an anti-collision system; meanwhile one company did it themselves very quickly in-house because they saw the problem and fixed it. But the FAA would not accept their approach.

Sorry … I worked for bureaucracies for years and years and all of my comments are still valid.

And then some.

 

[cynic]

Repetition, not honest argument or facts seems to be your forte.

my facts are better than yours, nah nah etc… this is pointless

But it is **already **illegal for criminals to buy guns.

But they can buy one second hand easily (gun show, from anyone who owns a gun legally), and they can get friends that don’t have records to buy them with minimal effort, and nobody will ever know where the guns ends up (serial numbers filed). This is one of points you *refuse *to respond to, because it might reveal how superficial your arguments are.

 

[cynic]

Once again,I ask; “People who like a nanny state are people who believe they need a nanny. They believe they cannot manage their own affairs, support themselves, or protect themselves.”

So how come they believe they are qualified to advise us on how to manage our affairs?

This statement is intended to shut down argument. Anyone who disagrees with vern gets a label.

 

[vern_humphrey]

my facts are better than yours, nah nah etc… this is pointless

Indeed it is. Why don’t you stick to subjects you know something about?

But they can buy one second hand easily, and they can get friends that don’t have records to buy them with minimal effort, and nobody will ever know where the gun ends up. This is one of points you and others *refuse *to respond to, because it might reveal how superficial and simplistic your arguments are.

And they can make guns, guns can be smuggled in, and so on. There are unlimited sources of guns – so much so that crimes are being committed with full automatic weapons even in England.

This is one of points you and others *refuse *to respond to, because it might reveal how superficial and simplistic your arguments are.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This statement is intended to shut down argument. In other words, anyone who disagrees with vern gets a label.

This statement is intended to shut down argument. In other words, anyone who disagrees with Cynic gets a label.

The difference is, I know what I’m talking about. I don’t have to imagine and suppose what happens when ordinary people are allowed to bear arms – I can simply look around.

We now have 37 states where any citizen of good repute is entitled by law to have a Concealed Carry permit, and two more states where no permit is required. In each and every state when those laws were being debated, there were people who made the same arguments you make – and every time, in every state, they were proven wrong. Violent crime went down, not up.

 

[Wolseley]

But they can buy one second hand easily (gun show, from anyone who owns a gun legally), and they can get friends that don’t have records to buy them with minimal effort, and nobody will ever know where the guns ends up (serial numbers filed).

Cites? Quotes? Have you ever done this personally?

This statement is intended to shut down argument. Anyone who disagrees with vern gets a label.

You already have one—you’re a cynic. (And a really good one, too, by the way.) So why get excited?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

It is when the DMV makes a clerical typographical error that is obvious, but the bureaucrats are too frightened of criticism to correct the error.

I happen to know for a fact that this isn’t true. Somehow, some money had been credited to my car’s registration but it actually belonged to someone else. The employees at the DMV were more than happy to clear up the problem. The other person got a check and I paid my registration.

But be honest, your right-wing ideology commands that you hate government in all shapes and forms, so you’re against bureaucracy. I get it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I happen to know for a fact that this isn’t true. Somehow, some money had been credited to my car’s registration but it actually belonged to someone else. The employees at the DMV were more than happy to clear up the problem. The other person got a check and I paid my registration.

But be honest, your right-wing ideology commands that you hate government in all shapes and forms, so you’re against bureaucracy. I get it.

Bureaucrats introduced the “New Math” into schools with disasterous results. How did they correct that? What recourse do the children have who failed to get a good education as a result of that error?

Bureaucrats introduced “Reality Orientation” into nursing homes – if an old lady wanted her hair in pigtails, and a doll to cradle, she was supposed to be told in no uncertain terms that she was 95 years old, and would remain in the nursing home for the rest of her days. Of course, people treated that way quickly declined and died.

How were the victims of that horrible bureaucratic error compensated?