English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

do we live in a nanny state where our government are tryin to protect us too much and are scared to deal with anything??? what is your opinion?

2006-10-11 08:41:32 · 9 answers · asked by elliott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

You are right, we do live in a nanny state. But you are completely wrong as to their motives. They most certainly do not want to protect us; they want to make us useless so that they can control us. All left wing governments try to do that. With the help of indoctrinating lefty teachers/lecturers and the TV media, they have succeeded.

Remember, we elect governments to represent us, not to micro manage our lives for us, and try to turn us into useless dependants of the state.

2006-10-13 06:00:49 · answer #1 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

I think the government seem to think that if it looks like they are putting a load of rules into place then we will all be fooled into thinking they're actually doing something. For example, this new rule about car seats for kids under a certain height is absolute rubbish. Who has to fork out money? The parents. Who blurts out the statistics about how many lives it will save? The government. But what about if they spent some of our tax money on getting the public transport system up to scratch as they promised? Where are the statistics to show how many lives that would save?

They are putting so many nanny style regulations into place without actually doing anything remotely useful with our money. Don't get me started on the NHS, smoking bans, alcohol limits and all the other things they are good at talking the talk about.

Sorry, rant over.

2006-10-11 08:53:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It bothers me that they want to outlaw smacking, further eroding the slack discipline that causes yob behaviour, people are afraid to go into teaching too because teachers have little protection nowadays, at the same time the government seems to have little interest in keeping violent/sex offenders behind bars - they don't want to protect people from things that matter, but make it difficult to live your life normally. And the child seat thing was outrageous, I didn't hear about it until the weekend before it came into force, and then nobody could buy the damn things because they all sold out instantly. It's a pity you can't rely on politicians to have common sense.

2006-10-11 09:21:54 · answer #3 · answered by Rotifer 5 · 1 0

Yes,

people much of this over-protective nature is born from the Nadarism of the 1970s. It's gotten progressively worse over time.

Arrogant intellectuals with power assume they know better then the rest of us and pass legislation to "protect us from outselves".

Frankly I am tired of it. Our responsibility is to live our lives according to what the founding fathers setup for us, that we pursue free and open commerce, have a useful and fulfilling life and enjoy life happily.. I'd remind everyone reading of a caveat to insure our freedom is well stated in the Declaration of Independence.. This caveat calls on us to stop tyranny, Nanny government is tyranny by intellect. It needs to be stopped.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

2006-10-11 08:56:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

i'm going to place my state appropriate up there for nomination: Washington. If a undeniable freedom of selection has no longer been limited by way of state regulation it somewhat is going to be by way of county and city codes. And on precise of all this we've a $10 billion (+) state funds deficit, and multimillion dollar county and city funds deficits. we've an prolonged historic previous of liberals controlling the government in any respect ranges. i think of i'm going to pass to Wyoming.

2016-12-08 12:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

nanny state with out a doubt if this stupid country Carry's on like this it will not be long the under 50years of age will have to phone some government **** to ask them is it safe to go out as is raining etc etc

2006-10-11 08:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I am protective enough of my own family and friends and really do not need some one else to aid and abet me. I think the Government should really lighten up and let people work it out for themselves.
Thankyou

2006-10-11 09:20:50 · answer #7 · answered by maria bartoninfrance 4 · 2 0

most of the governments, in their ruling term, try to make some thing different so their names will be written in the history books... some of them do good while others do bad

2006-10-11 08:44:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yeah mine is too mate ,all smelly and dribbling , oh sorry i missunderstood the question !

2006-10-11 08:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by nicemanvery 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers