Wednesday, 24 August 2011

The nanny state isn't so altruistic after all.

I am shocked, shocked that petty bureaucrats use health and safety
regulations as a smoke screen to further their own agendas!


eon said...

By its very nature, government attracts people who like to boss other people around.

It is the twisted genius of "progressivism" that its dogmas are ones that allow its adherents to behave like Captain Queeg while feeling good about themselves- because everything they do is intended to "make the world a better place".

Some of the more honest ones admit to themselves that this argument is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, but then they're generally the ones who are perfectly willing to hurt people for the fun of it, too. As seen here.



Sergej said...

Or as a convenient excuse for doing something inconvenient to others. Round about these-'ere parts it's environmentally friendliness. Need to pack your fattysnacks in cheap and flimsy packaging? call it environmentally green. Want to make back the R&D costs on your ridiculous, mercury-filled spiral light bulb... things? declare all others Bad for Polar Bears. Last time I moved I couldn't find any non-green boxes. They lasted slightly less than one full move.

Ironmistress said...

Never explain anything malice when stupidity is the more obvious explanation. Good intentions have a nasty tendency to go awry. That is why we need the tripartite division of governance. To prevent overshoots like these.

In Finland, we assume that a consumer knows what s/he is doing and is able to do so responsibly. It is okay to ban smoking on public buildings (smoking is harmful to others) but nobody could here even think about banning flying kite or playing football at school.

It is far more sensible to go after real than imaginary risks.

Chris Lopes said...

You miss the up side of going after imaginary risks; when those risks don't materialize, you can claim success. Dealing with reals risks is just too darn hard.