What is wrong with the nanny state?

[LCMS_No_More]

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?

Those are example of bad policies. The people who came up with those ideas are responsible. When people step outside their areas of competence, then you always end up with trouble.

Of course, we could be talking about different things when we discuss bureaucracy. I’m talking about the provision of services on a large scale and the system by which those services are provided. In order to do the things you describe, it would have to either be someone high up in the hierarchy (bureaucracies tend to be hierarchical) who failed upward or someone stepping out of bounds.

Either way, most bureaucracies don’t operate that way and you don’t notice them until you need them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Those are example of bad policies. The people who came up with those ideas are responsible. When people step outside their areas of competence, then you always end up with trouble.

But how are the people whose lives were blighted by a bad education to be “made whole?” How are the elderly nursing home patients whose deaths were accelerated and made miserable to be compensated?

Of course, we could be talking about different things when we discuss bureaucracy. I’m talking about the provision of services on a large scale and the system by which those services are provided. In order to do the things you describe, it would have to either be someone high up in the hierarchy (bureaucracies tend to be hierarchical) who failed upward or someone stepping out of bounds.

Either way, most bureaucracies don’t operate that way and you don’t notice them until you need them.

Acutally, a lot of bureaucracies operate that way. And the reason you don’t notice them is because you don’t have contact with them.

A government that is powerful enough to do everything for you, is powerful enough to do everything to you – and simple bureaucratic errors in such cases can cause untold misery and suffering.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

But how are the people whose lives were blighted by a bad education to be “made whole?”

Good question. I’m sure that if they went to college, they’d place badly in math and have to take remedial courses. If it were up to me, I would have given those classes and the books for them for free.

How are the elderly nursing home patients whose deaths were accelerated and made miserable to be compensated?

How many nursing homes are government owned and operated? Are there actual regulation that say that clients must be treated that way? I know that the law sets a minimum standard of care (which is as it should be) but if you can demonstrate that the regulations require a certain style of care, I’d be more amenable to buying what you say here.

Acutally, a lot of bureaucracies operate that way. And the reason you don’t notice them is because you don’t have contact with them.

How do you know how many or what kind of bureaucracies I have contact with?

I happen to be an employee of the Greatest State in the United States, the State of California. While we have our issues with idiotic people in management make asinine decisions, for the most part, we are able to fulfill the mission of the agency I work for pretty well.

A government that is powerful enough to do everything for you, is powerful enough to do everything to you

Nice use of a platitude.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good question. I’m sure that if they went to college, they’d place badly in math and have to take remedial courses. If it were up to me, I would have given those classes and the books for them for free.

And we both know that didn’t happen – any more than the 50% of students in our 50 largest cities who fail to graduate high school get something to compensate for their poor education.

How many nursing homes are government owned and operated?

Virtually all of them come under strict government regulation – it’s part of Medicare.

Are there actual regulation that say that clients must be treated that way?

You bet there were! Nursing homes were fined if residents were “encouraged” in their delusions. The homes were forced to “reality orient” them.

I know that the law sets a minimum standard of care (which is as it should be) but if you can demonstrate that the regulations require a certain style of care, I’d be more amenable to buying what you say here.

My wife is an RN, and I have seen a state inspector forcibly take a doll from an elderly woman in a wheel chair.

How do you know how many or what kind of bureaucracies I have contact with?

Your lack of knowledge about the situations I describe tell me you have little contact with the agencies that did these things.

I happen to be an employee of the Greatest State in the United States, the State of California. While we have our issues with idiotic people in management make asinine decisions, for the most part, we are able to fulfill the mission of the agency I work for pretty well.

By what standard? Can you point me to data that measures both the cost and the effectiveness of your agency?

Nice use of a platitude.

Calling it a “platitude” doesn’t make it any less true.

 

[cynic]

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.
.

Of course the sources of guns aren’t unlimited, nor is the supply. Any reasonable person would agree that if illicit drugs were legalized this would increase their availability, and widen their use. You don’t hear many people saying “hell, people are still taking drugs, why bother having them illegal?”. The legal status keeps a lid on supply and availability (how easy it is for any idiot to buy drugs). So drug prohibition is deemed worthwhile.

People in England were never able to carry concealed weapons legally. Hence any rise in crime after the ban on handguns - which had to be stored away even when it was legal to own one - is not due to disarming citizens - *they were never armed. *

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

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?

I don’t oppose the government from busting them. I never said that.

Because the government won’t do

that!

But they should be doing 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

And while they’re at it,they should also go after those who sell guns to violent criminals. Supply creates demand. As long as the underground market makes guns so easily available,guns will easily get into the hands of the wrong people.

If the government dedicates itself to going after the people who sell guns to criminals,then the problem will be attacked at its source.

That’s already

the law!!

I know it’s already the law. But evidently,the law isn’t being enforced very much.

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

Or the people who aren’t turning down the criminals who want to buy firearms.

That’s** already**

the law!

I know.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course the sources of guns aren’t unlimited, nor is the supply. Any reasonable person would agree that if illicit drugs were legalized this would increase their availability, and widen their use. You don’t hear many people saying “hell, people are still taking drugs, why bother having them illegal?”. The legal status keeps a lid on supply and availability (how easy it is for any idiot to buy drugs). So drug prohibition is deemed worthwhile.

People in England were never able to carry concealed weapons legally. Hence any rise in crime after the ban on handguns - which had to be stored away even when it was legal to own one - is not due to disarming citizens - *they were never armed. *

Prior to the 1920s, they were armed.

But with each step toward victim disarmament, your crime and victimization rate goes up.

 

[vz71]

Prior to the 1920s, they were armed.

But with each step toward victim disarmament, your crime and victimization rate goes up.

Just to throw more fuel on this…

With each law towards disarmament, there will be an increasing number that do not give up their guns, and thereby become criminals.
Let’s make certain we account for these when we look at the statistics concerning the relationship between a law banning guns and an increase in crime.

And while I’m at it…
When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will have guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When talking to the British about disarmament, remember they tried this before. In fact, they sent out a secret detatchment to seize American arms.

And you know the rest in books you’re read
How the British regulars fired and fled
How the farmers gave them ball for ball
From behind each fence and farmyard wall

Chasing the redcoats down the lane
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the bend of the road
And only pausing to fire and load.

 

[Wolseley]

When talking to the British about disarmament, remember they tried this before. In fact, they sent out a secret detatchment to seize American arms.

Yeah—they also found out that marching in formation up a hill to seize entrenched artillery positions (Breed’s Hill) doesn’t accomplish much except to provide you with a large supply of uniformed corpses.

And then, they did it again, at Balaclava…and again, at Gallipoli…and again, at the Somme…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah—they also found out that marching in formation up a hill to seize entrenched artillery positions (Breed’s Hill) doesn’t accomplish much except to provide you with a large supply of uniformed corpses.

And then, they did it again, at Balaclava…and again, at Gallipoli…and again, at the Somme…

And they never learn.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Of course the sources of guns aren’t unlimited, nor is the supply. Any reasonable person would agree that if illicit drugs were legalized this would increase their availability, and widen their use. You don’t hear many people saying “hell, people are still taking drugs, why bother having them illegal?”. The legal status keeps a lid on supply and availability (how easy it is for any idiot to buy drugs). So drug prohibition is deemed worthwhile.

People in England were never able to carry concealed weapons legally. Hence any rise in crime after the ban on handguns - which had to be stored away even when it was legal to own one - is not due to disarming citizens - *they were never armed. *

Actually, the sources of guns is / are unlimited.

And the supply of guns is unlimited.

Guns and sources and supplies are not something mysterious or majickal.

Any talented crook can make up a batch and sell them in the criminal underworld … the black market … Or they can be smuggled in easily. Or stolen from the police or stolen from the military.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Just to throw more fuel on this…

With each law towards disarmament, there will be an increasing number that do not give up their guns, and thereby become criminals.
Let’s make certain we account for these when we look at the statistics concerning the relationship between a law banning guns and an increase in crime.

And while I’m at it…
When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will have guns.

Are you also suggesting that … possibly … criminals will not give up their guns … in addition to creating a whole new category of criminals?

 

[Al_Masetti]

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.

I know for a fact that it is true.

[How are you going to prove a negative??? Hmmm???]

It would also be helpful for posters to cease and desist from using pejorative language such as “your right-wing ideology commands that you hate government in all shapes and forms”.

I try to avoid personalizing my stating the inherent limitations of bureaucracy.

Thankyouandhaveaniceday.

 

[Nino]

Well lets see…it is easier for us to sit rather then stand…then again its easier to lie down then sit…etc etc…the so called easier way is not the best way…one of my favoirte songs is ‘against the wind’ for thats been my life and I feel I am closer to my Creator for it…if I had been 'helped’by the so-called nanny gov…I would be but a slave…rounded edges are not the best in all circumstances…but those that 'help’us seem to develop somekind of messianic complex…in our Dec.of Independence it was stated…'all Men are created equal and have un-alienable rights…the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness" So our freedoms come from God not the State…it is the States job to just (!) protect our God given rights…notice which country gives the most in these latest world wide disasters…are they nanny governments or democracies!

 

[cynic]

Prior to the 1920s, they were armed.

But with each step toward victim disarmament, your crime and victimization rate goes up.

You fail to get it, you were trying to prove that the *recent ban of handguns *has led to higher levels of violent crime. My response was that they weren’t allowed to carry hanguns around prior to this, and even in the home they had to be stored away. Hence you’re wrong about that.

 

[cynic]

Columbine HIgh School massacre:

“In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s).[38] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[39] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[40]”

(my emphasis)

Adequate licensing laws would have made it harder to buy these guns second hand ie. made it an offence for those selling them to sell to an unlicensed individual.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

 

[hoosiertoo]

Not that I have anything against guns - I own a couple - but back on the topic “What is wrong with the nanny state?” John Zmirak has this to say:

In an American context, given our constitutional heritage and the large body of legal decisions solidifying its interpretation, on nearly any issue, Christians of any denomination should reject the assistance of the State. Our efforts to capture it, the courts have made it clear, will always fail. Any attempt to infuse the activity of the government with the moral content of a revealed religion will be rejected, in the end. Indeed, the more our own
institutions cooperate with the government, the more they will be compromised; hospitals which take federal funds will be subject to secular ethics on issues like contraception, end-of-life, and even abortion. Religious colleges accepting federal grants will eventually be federalized, and so on.

It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast. We should favor low taxes—period, regardless of the “good” use to which politicians promise to put it. We should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever. We can make exceptions here and there: We can favor the protection of innocent lives, which would cover things
like fixing traffic lights and throwing abortionists into prison. But that is pretty much that. Christian public policy should focus not on capturing the power of the State but shrinking it, to the bare minimum required to enforce individual rights, narrowly defined.

Likewise, the share of our wealth seized by the state must be radically slashed, to allow for private initiatives and charities that will not be amoral, soulless, bureaucratic and counterproductive
(like the secular welfare state). Instead of asking for handouts to our schools in the forms of vouchers, we should seek the privatization of public schools—which by their very nature, in today’s post-Christian America, are engines of secularism. And so on for nearly every institution of the centralized State, which has hijacked the rightful activities of civil society and the churches, and which every year steals so much of our wealth to squander on itself that we can barely afford to reproduce ourselves. (So the State helpfully offers to replace us with immigrants, but that’s another article.)

I agree wholeheartedly. The comments to the article are an education in themselves.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You fail to get it, you were trying to prove that the *recent ban of handguns *has led to higher levels of violent crime. My response was that they weren’t allowed to carry hanguns around prior to this, and even in the home they had to be stored away. Hence you’re wrong about that.

You fail to get it.

From the 1920s forward, Britian has enacted a long series of victim disarmament acts – to the point that one cannot carry any implement for self-defense. And there is a strong correlation between those acts and Britain’s rising victimization rate.

Now, you may be right that you need a nanny. But you are not right in assuming you are qualified to tell us how to run our affairs.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

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.

True, bureaucracy does serve a function and is needed. Consider the difference in operation between public sector bureaucrats and private sector. In the private sector, say handling insurance claims, the “bureaucrat” if you will who is processing the claims must be efficient and accurate - otherwise the company will not be profitable. If the processing agent is not efficient and accurate they will likely get fired or bumped to a more menial task. In the public sector, if a bureaucrat or someone processing claims is not efficient or accurate, well, they need help!!! And another bureaucrat pops up. The tendency in public sector is to grow bureaucracy.