I think what is a nanny state is open to interpretation by anyone. The DBA-wetgeving mentioned Galactor is a typical example. It affects a very small part of society. Actually what in Britain are called independent self employed. They before the DBA law would make a contract with a client but they were all different which made it awkward for the tax people so a standard template contract was made law so a better comparison could be made. Is that a nanny state or just more efficient tax collecting?

According to these folks:
http://nannystateindex.org/index-2017/, nanny state is .. the best and worst countries to eat, drink, smoke & vape in the EU



https://www.expats.cz/prague/article/we ... ean-union/



I would say something but it would hardly be ingenious. Well, perhaps .. free to be an idiot index hmm? I think I like that.

Maybe others disagree with me, but I think everyone sees the actual harm in something like smoking in a restaurant, and restricting that is something that increases the feeling of freedom for the majority, so that doesn't say "nanny state" to me.

I think nanny state as a label applies when the rules don't seem to have any sense of purpose, such as being fined for not rolling up a garden hose and leaving it lying in full view or parking a car after midnight in a public place or some other nonsensical petty restriction. Those were made up btw, I can't think of real examples right now.

I don't wear a helmet when riding my bike. I get chronic headaches anytime a covering is on my head. So I avoid hats and helmets. I don't ride my bike on the road because I'm not stupid. Instead I stick to my leisure bike paths at the park. I accept the risk, without putting myself in stupid danger.

Requiring bike helmet when riding bike on a trafficked road = justifiable.
Requiring bike helmet when at the park = intrusive and unnecessary law.

The same can be said about a lot of laws.

willhud9 wrote:I don't wear a helmet when riding my bike. I get chronic headaches anytime a covering is on my head. So I avoid hats and helmets. I don't ride my bike on the road because I'm not stupid. Instead I stick to my leisure bike paths at the park. I accept the risk, without putting myself in stupid danger.

Requiring bike helmet when riding bike on a trafficked road = justifiable.
Requiring bike helmet when at the park = intrusive and unnecessary law.

The same can be said about a lot of laws.

Very few wear helmets here mostly ex-pats. Not required as there is no law and most Dutch would think you are mad to wear one. Our infrastructure of course makes it non necessity. Plenty of studies have shown helmets on cyclists has little impact regarding safety but that is here of course.

Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?

A Dutchman's view of cycling in the states.

To me it comes down to "no harm, no foul", and exactly how you define that. From a public health perspective in single payer or tax-supported health care systems, the tax-paying public at large has an interest in what I eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise do to myself (including wearing a helmet while riding a bike), because my poor decisions can have an adverse financial effect on the public purse. In this country - not so much. You don't need to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle here in Florida, but your health insurance might refuse to pay if you don't, in which case you, and your family, are fucked. So wear a helmet or buy more expensive insurance. But you can't have it both ways - you can't decry Nanny State Legislation and at the same time expect Other People to pick up the bill for your idiocy.

Another case in point, and dear to my rapacious, capitalist, DIY heart. I can't do things like fix electrical wiring or plumbing by myself, EVEN IF I do it to code and have it inspected by the government. I have to hire someone who has been licensed by the state. To me that is utter bullshit, because I'm competent enough to do all of that work myself, and, in my experience, I do a better job than the licensed contractors I've hired. Now, if I was to do it and NOT do it to building code and refused to have it inspected, then there's a fair argument that my actions may have a deleterious impact on others. I.E. my house may burn down and take out the neighbor. But if I do it to code and it passes inspection, then this insistence on certified, licensed contractors has no legitimacy. It's just a fucking scam to extort more money out of me.

crank wrote:[...] At least in the US for guys, there are going to be fears of others thinking you're a sissy, or unmanly, etc, These considerations would apply broadly, like for helmets on bikes, eating less meat, even getting vaccinated. With the cover of a law, it is easier for many to change behaviors due to diminished stigmas getting attached, and how many would change their behavior quickly so the standing out problem won't be anywhere near as bad. [...]

If a person buckles to peer-pressure from strangers, sounds like their assessment's not far wrong ...

What typifies "nanny state" for me is when people in authority take it upon themselves to tell you what you should and should not be reading/watching/playing/listening to, when there's no pressing need to do so, and especially when they then start banning media they dislike on that basis. All for your own good, naturally. My first thought was the Tories and their crusade to ban legal but "non-conventional" porn in the UK:

The UK government plans to censor "non-conventional" pornography — a move that has been criticised by free speech activists, and could see some of the web's most popular sites banned in Britain.

As part of the digital economy bill currently being discussed, the UK government would implement strict porn filters in the UK — forcing sites that host adult content to verify users' ages or risk being blocked in the country.

More...

The term nanny state also comes up in the title and text of this article, about the European Parliament's official position on an audiovisual "reform" directive, which could apparently end up leaving a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of deciding what can and cannot be said on the internet, particularly social media.

Twenty-eight versions of Facebook, a nanny state and censorship of the internet: those could be the consequences if the European Parliament's position on the directive regulating the provision of audiovisual media services (AVMS) enters into force.

More...