New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
With so many new nanny state laws being passed, seemingly on a daily basis, are the articles about them going in one ear and out the other?
How can people resist these laws when so freakin' many of them are being passed all the freakin' time?
Are people just tuning out when they hear these stories, allowing legislators to run roughshod?
Here's the latest one that raised my ire:
This week, the legislative council in King County, Wash. — which includes Seattle — voted five-to-four to require that life jackets be worn by anyone and everyone “on or in a major river.”...
...Failure to don an approved personal flotation device while “swimming or wading more than five feet from shore, or in water more than four feet in depth,” can get you an $86 fine.
The full article details how, in a previous article about requiring lifejackets in boats, the author had warned that this kind of ban was inevitable.
The comments and letters he received accused him of being paranoid. This kind of measure is so rediculous, claimed his detractors, that it could never be passed by any legislature.
Yeah, right...
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Yes, point at the silly Liberal King County and shake your heads. Point and laugh. I live in Seattle where recycling and composting is the law. Where the Mayor funnels millions of dollars to bike projects. Where bus lanes are empty and car traffic lanes are full. Where property values go down yet property taxes mysteriously go up. I've complained about the idiocy of it all and people tell me they moved here because its this way. After 12 years here, I'm ready for Texas.
Jul '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
As conservatives, we frequently rail against encroachments upon our freedoms by the Federal government. But state and local governments are just as bad, perhaps even worse, in terms of the plague of mandates and prohibitions.
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Uh oh, that sounds an awful lot like my home town...
Dec '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
I'll happily stay next door in Kitsap county where the rivers and government are less full of [I'll just redact myself here to save time] and I can swim unimpeded across the creek. Seattle and most of King county really does have the government it deserves.
Sep '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
We are drowning in debt and they want to fund a kops in kayaks program?
Jan '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
So if you're swimming, you can't go underwater? You're only allowed to swim on the surface?
Are you allowed to get your hair wet, or will that be ... evidence?
Oct '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Simply cannot risk any taxpayers drowning resulting in loss of revenue.
Apr '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
One does wonder how they're going to enforce it. I suspect most people will either not know about the law, or totally ignore it.
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
I like how lifejackets are required in rivers, but not in Puget Sound.
Jan '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
This illistrates the danger of big/nanny government period. While I'm a states rights guy, I'm in agreement with you others in that localities & states can go way overboard. Would any of our Ricochet Lawyer types know if laws/mandates like this, or the San Francisco ban on: circumcision, plastic bags and pet goldfish, bottled water, soft drinks are constitutional. Not just the Federal Constitution but the various state constitutions as well. For instance, in the case of nutty California, is there a similar "that which the state constitution does not proscribe shall be the sole authority of the: counties, cities, townships, etc.'. Does it depend on the wording of the various state constitutions?
To my mind, these recycling and bag bans are perfect candidates for commerce clause challenges - is that a Federal thing only or are there state commerce clauses?
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Splashing around in an Approved Flotation Device is no more "swimming" than puttering around in a Pedalo. They've effectively banned swimming in rivers.
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
They're quite frequently worse. But the point, from of conservative point of view, is that local governments are easier to escape, and therefore subject to the discipline of competition.
Jul '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Paul DeRocco
They're quite frequently worse. But the point, from of conservative point of view, is that local governments are easier to escape, and therefore subject to the discipline of competition. · Jun 24 at 7:37pm
And easier to scream our bloody heads off at, due to proximity.
Do you think King County should just trust you to hold your own breath?
Obviously this public health issue should be licensed, at the least.
Jan '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
I understand the argument made about local control and being able to escape/leave (Romney tries that with the Mass. HC Law) but I have real problems with citizens being forced to move to where they least object to their governance. I'm a small "L" libertarian and cumulative effect of these kind of laws/mandates are just oppressive.
I want to be left alone.
May '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
As stated by Kowaliczko Tom, we conservatives who argue that the Feds should keep their hands off of powers the Constitution leaves to the States, need to remember that states left to their own devices are not automatically more tolerable. Local tin-pot bureaucrats can often be more difficult to overcome.
And in addition to very specific Nanny state rules (e.g. lifejackets in 4 feet of water) is the proliferation of *vague* regulations and laws, such that every American could be considered to commit crimes simply by going about their lives. This was explored in Harvey Silvergate's "Three Felonies A Day".
Lastly, don't forget, we shall soon also become criminals for what we don't do...buy healthcare, recycle, etc...
Edited on Jun 25, 2011 at 6:01amMar '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Who are these people who didn't get swimming lessons but are paddling around in water so deep that they need a life preserver.
Also: its common sense to have enough life preservers on a boat for all the people you're taking along. Who are these people who are too stupid to have life preservers on board?
$86? Where did that magical number come from?
King County, really? How about buying some more snow plows so that fewer school buses get into winter-time accidents, since you refuse to salt the roads.
Apr '11
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
Stupid laws, laws that have no tangible effect on the public good and just interfere with people's ordinary lives, erode respect for the rule of law, especially if they carry fines or penalties that can be enforced even if a person is ignorant of the law. Make compliance with the law too difficult, and average people will start not to care whether they comply with it. Their personal ethics will stop them from violating major laws, but give it a few generations and society will have forgotten why they chose to comply with those particular laws, and abandon compliance altogether.
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
See, now, THIS story just illustrates my point about "nanny state fatigue": San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets
How can we possibly keep up with all these stories?! How can libertarian/conservative activists successfully take the time to fight one nanny state law when dozens more will be proposed and/or passed in the meantime?
It's fine and dandy to say that individuals shouldn't be required to move to a different jurisdiction to avoid this madness, but at the end of the day, when there are such huge floods of madness coming at you from all directions, the only answer for the individual seems to be to just say "f**k it" and move to Houston or New Hampshire.
Aug '10
Re: New Nanny State Laws Are Proliferating To The Point We Don't Care
The scary part is that there are an awful lot of people in Seattle, San Francisco and other places who actually like these rules. In California, they're sometimes imposed by initiative petition.