Welcome to the Nanny State 2008

mtwallet

New Member
Jul 4, 2003
241
0
0
Montreal
Visit site
Nanny State: A world where freedoms are controlled by Government


There have been a couple threads recently bringing the "Nanny State" issue to light. Disturbing, and enlightening.

The first and most blatant example was the judge who overruled a parent's punishment of a disobedient child. Absolutely ridiculous waste of time and money. Not to mention the ramifications down the line. "Johnny, that's enough TV, go to bed. See you in court DAD!"

The "Blind Pigs" thread, a question about allowing smoking was enough to give me a glimmer of hope that people are "protesting" total government control.

When did we as a society allow ourselves to give up our right to life? Our right to raise our children in the manner we saw fit. Our right to choose to be foolish and inconsiderate? (I'm a smoker) Our right to make a living?

I am the one raising my child. I am the one putting up with tantrums and general disobedience. Therefore, I am the one who will decide what punishment is appropriate. If I feel that my child needs to be spanked, sent to bed without supper, or have a priveledge taken away, that is my right as a parent. Not some stunned **** judge, who isn't part of my family, and plays no part whatsoever in his/her upbringing. I have a responsibility to that child to give it the best upbringing I possibly can. And that includes knowing the difference between discipline and abuse. If I cross that line, then the courts should get involved. Don't take away every parent's right to authority just because some don't know where to stop. Funny how we didn't have anywhere near as many violent crimes by "youthful offenders" when Mom and Dad were allowed to tan Juniors backside when he misbehaved.

I am a smoker. That's my choice. Not yours. If I want to own a bar that caters to smokers, who is the government to tell me I can't? That is denying my right to work. Obviously I would have to advise potential staff about the work enviornment before I hired them. You don't like smoke? Then go work somewhere else. There only has to be one single job opening somewhere else in the city, and it would be their choice. Nobody would have their rights denied.

Want more nonsense from the Nanny State? How about covering up all cigarette displays in depanneurs? Has it stopped anybody from smoking? I doubt it. Will it stop anybody from smoking in the future? I doubt that too. Walk past any restaurant or bar, and there's the smokers outside. So little Junior can still see people indulging in their evil habit while he's still in his most formative years.

How about government control over hard liquor? Funny how the government never takes responsibility for drunk drivers and all the death and misery they cause. Am I supposed to believe that every drunk driver was sloshed on beer from Couche Tard? There's a lot of people in the US who have made an honest (not something the SAQ is renound for) living with a liquor store. That'll never happen here in the Nanny State.

Lastly, but only cause it's late, think about the CRTC. A government board whose ONLY reason for existance is to control what you watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. Apparently we as Canadians are too feeble minded to be able to choose what we want to entertain us. A gaurantee of Canadian content? Don't make me laugh. Most worthy entertainers head south before we've ever heard of them because of the antiquated royalties system here. I can think for myself thank you. Sue me if I'd rather watch a MLB game than Women's Volleyball from Halifax. I hate the fact that some of my tax money goes to pay for these people.

That's it. The rant is over. I think I'll head down to my favorite Blind Pig, have a smoke and a beer, and watch a little ESPN thanks to the owner's illegal satellite dish. Fuck you Nanny State. And all the mental midgets who support you.
 

metoo4

I am me, too!
Mar 28, 2004
2,208
0
0
If only I knew...
Visit site
What do you tell to a kid who's complaining he want to be treated as an adult? You tell them to act as such. In the meantime, he'll have a nanny. Now, our society is full of "kids" who just think about themself, without any regards to others or to consequences, safety-wise or other. So, what's left? Give them a nanny!

Grow-up and think about the "big picture" is all I can say! You might not need a nanny, in your opinion but, my 11yo nephew think the same way. Even if you really don't need one, some of your "brother and sisters" do so, the nanny fills a need.

Contrary to a kid, nobody is forced to live here until a certain age so, you have plenty of other options, right?

By the way, I'm no "mental midget". This is an insult! I should ask your nanny-MOD to ban you! Name calling, how adult is this?
 

mtwallet

New Member
Jul 4, 2003
241
0
0
Montreal
Visit site
metoo4, I'm disappointed to find out that you, unless I misunderstood your post, support the loss of freedom of choice. I have read many of your posts and found them to be very informative and articulate. If you have no problem letting someone else decide your life for you though, so be it. If that is what you want, then I respect that. But not very much.
Human beings were given the power of free thought. Without it, there would never have been music, art, or literature. Mankind would have never advanced beyond living in caves. I'm not advocating a free-for-all society without any rules or laws. I'm talking about retaining the simple right to choose my own direction.
You're right that some people need a "Nanny"; People who, due to mental defect, are unable to care for themselves, and criminals who have broken the laws of civilized society. Every other person out there, including yourself, was given the power to choose. How would you like to wake up one morning to find out that : The internet has been banned because of offensive content, having more than one child is now illegal because it places an unnecessary burden on society, intercourse has been deemed an act limited to procreation only. Don't think it can happen? Go to Afghanistan, China, and any hardcore Catholic church.
Men and women have died by the hundreds of thousands defending our right to freedom. Not only physical freedom, but mental as well. If you are willing to throw away your rights, go ahead. I, for one, will not go down without a fight.
 

Porter

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
367
0
0
mtwallet,

Thats was like a breath of fresh air ! Reading your outcry gives me hope that not all is lost..

Our society is more comfortable with someone else taking on the burden, and thus we let slip the little freedoms, until one morning we realize we are marching to the drums of injustice, utter control and quasi dictatorship.

Yes I agree that we are much much better with less government, hence we realize that government these days is another puppet to corporate giants..

If you would just know how much information the gov has on us, most would run me down calling me a lunatic... what is done for the sake of "nationnell" security is just insane..

P./
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 17, 2003
2,417
0
0
Her Hot Dreams
Visit site
mtwallet said:
Nanny State: A world where freedoms are controlled by Government
Hello Mtwallet,

What I love about smokers is their failure to admit one inevitable thing about this so-called freedom. If you want to smoke your guts out that's fine. I mean I would rather not see you do it because the eventual consequences are terrible for you, and I don't want to see anyone suffering. But if you insist on that choice then it's your fault not mine and you will do what you want anyway. But as to freedom, individual freedoms should be something that do not impose very definite financial burdens on others. The inevitable consequence of smoking is it is one of the top influences on health care costs, access to health care and all the problems therein. All of society pays for smoker's choices and that is not freedom, that's tyranny. If smokers want to light up maybe they should be exempt or barred from any health care plan that pushes the cost of their problems onto others. If you want real freedom to smoke then pay for your choices yourselves. Form a smoker's health care cooperative that does not impinge on the cost of health care for those who should not be paying for the cost of sicknesses YOU chose to risk. When it comes to smoking you go your way, we go ours, and we each pay for our own choices without sticking it to the other.

And don't tell me your grandmother smoked for a billion years and never got any sickness due to smoking. The fact is the great majority of smokers are worse off or tragically worse off later in life and pass the costs of their health care to everyone.

the facts,

Korbel
 
Last edited:

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,927
0
0
Taxes and Other Issues

Korbel said:
Hello Mtwallet,

What I love about smokers is their failure to admit one inevitable thing about this so-called freedom. If you want to smoke your guts out that's fine. I mean I would rather not see you do it because the eventual consequences are terrible for you, and I don't want to see anyone suffering. But if you insist on that choice then it's your fault not mine and you will do what you want anyway. But as to freedom, individual freedoms should be something that do not impose very definite financial burdens on others. The inevitable consequence of smoking is it is one of the top influences on health care costs, access to health care and all the problems therein. All of society pays for smoker's choices and that is not freedom, that's tyranny. If smokers want to light up maybe they should be exempt or barred from any health care plan that pushes the cost of their problems onto others. If you want real freedom to smoke then pay for your choices yourselves. Form a smoker's health care cooperative that does not impinge on the cost of health care for those who should not be paying for the cost of sicknesses YOU chose to risk. When it comes to smoking you go your way, we go ours, and we each pay for our own choices without sticking it to the other.

And don't tell me your grandmother smoked for a billion years and never got any sickness due to smoking. The fact is the great majority of smokers are worse off or tragically worse off later in life and pass the costs of their health care to everyone.

the facts,

Korbel
Cigarettes are taxed by various levels of goverment thereby generating revenues that filter down to benefit society and cover costs at various levels.

The same analogy may be applied to overeaters with the added difference that while the concept of choice is somewhat present in smoking, babies that are overfed or improperly nourished from the start do not have a "choice".
Being overweight creates additional costs to the health care system as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that since 1907 the average life expectancy
has risen from 47 years to app 80 years - almost doubling, despite the fact that people indulge in various bad habits - smoking,drinking,overeating, etc,
plus society has evolved to the point where some of our advances, car and air travel require greater risk.
 

johnhenrygalt

Member
Nov 10, 2004
541
0
16
eastender said:
... car and air travel require greater risk.
Greater risk than getting kicked in the head by a horse? Greater risk than dying of frostbite when having to travel by horse, snowshoe or ski in winter?
 

johnhenrygalt

Member
Nov 10, 2004
541
0
16
mtwallet said:
I am the one raising my child. I am the one putting up with tantrums and general disobedience. Therefore, I am the one who will decide what punishment is appropriate. If I feel that my child needs to be spanked, sent to bed without supper, or have a priveledge taken away, that is my right as a parent. Not some stunned **** judge, who isn't part of my family, and plays no part whatsoever in his/her upbringing. I have a responsibility to that child to give it the best upbringing I possibly can. And that includes knowing the difference between discipline and abuse. If I cross that line, then the courts should get involved. Don't take away every parent's right to authority just because some don't know where to stop.
Let's all cry for the poor whiny-ass parents who are so "oppressed" that they're no longer allowed to beat up on kids a quarter their size. If you want to hit someone, take up boxing - if you have the guts to hit someone who might hit back.


Funny how we didn't have anywhere near as many violent crimes by "youthful offenders" when Mom and Dad were allowed to tan Juniors backside when he misbehaved.
Instead we had violent assaults perpetrated on a daily basis by a bunch of fucking asshole "parents" who got their jollies or worked out their frustrations by beating up on the helpless children they were supposed to protect.

It's time to get back at that generation of unpunished criminals. It's time to take a stroll through an old folks home. Some grumpy old geezer mouths off to a nurse or an orderly - whip his ass. If he shits his pants - whip his ass. If he doesn't eat his veggies - whip his ass. If he tries fighting back - whip his ass twice as hard.
 
Last edited:

gizmo

New Member
Aug 14, 2004
196
0
0
39
gizmoville
Visit site
!

Mtwallet I support you and understand you, you could change to a different country if you dont like here, I will in near future, maybe here you have order and quiet life, your 2 weeks holidays but you dont have real freedom. I can feel it since Im not grow up here. Here most people believe what is said in the news. it seems that this type of control help countries to be stable, to gain power, look at usa the kingdom of enterteinment and american idol and stuff. Canada is very close to that type of control strategies as any other part of the world but here it works in other countries dont work as well as in canada-usa. maybe you dont feel it as canadians, but for me it is funny to see that most people in canada go to supermarket at the exact same time.
However, take note that with freedom other situations occurs that may be dangerous for your normal quiet canadian life.
 

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,927
0
0
Yes

johnhenrygalt said:
Greater risk than getting kicked in the head by a horse? Greater risk than dying of frostbite when having to travel by horse, snowshoe or ski in winter?
Yes. You never had weekend or holiday tallies in the media for deaths from kicks to the head delivered by horses.:D Insurance companies do not require horse owners to carry extra coverage for "kicking incidents":rolleyes:

Most people just stayed indoors when it was extremely cold prior to the 20th century.
 

Ben Dover

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
640
0
0
Korbel said:
But as to freedom, individual freedoms should be something that do not impose very definite financial burdens on others. The inevitable consequence of smoking is it is one of the top influences on health care costs, access to health care and all the problems therein. All of society pays for smoker's choices and that is not freedom, that's tyranny.

Korbel,

Wonderfully naive as usual. This is the myopic view of the tunnel-visionned non-smoker who tries to tie smoking and personal freedom together and then break them apart...

So, it's ok that all the walkers and bikers breath in the exhaust fumes of cars, right? That's different... And it's ok that they pay taxes for roads and bridges that they never use, right? And it's ok for people who are single and don't have kids to pay school taxes, right? And TV and video game and junk food that turn all of our kids into little balls of lard --- all that is fine right? And, of course it's ok to cut down pristine forest and drill for oil in virgin land. All that is fine, because you can't smell it when you walk by. Right Korbie? What kind of SUV do you drive anyway? This is your chance to tell me that you converted your prius to run on garbage....


Korbel said:
If smokers want to light up maybe they should be exempt or barred from any health care plan that pushes the cost of their problems onto others.
And you are going to ban the alcoholics too right? What about the 400lbs fatties that have no actual disorder other than the inability to stop stuffing krispy kreme donuts into their faces? Should they form a "health care co-operative too"? Speaking of which, why should perfectly healthy people like me pay for the health care costs for people that have no business reproducing -- because they know at the onset that their kids will have problems.... Or, should my taxes pay for the health care of an autistic crippled child from botswana, who was adopted by a canadian family and brought here for "a better life"?? Fuck that -- it makes my life worse. Why?? Why should I pay for that??? It's almost as good as paying hospital costs for losers who fail at everything, including trying to kill themselves. In your world, a guy can jump of the roof in an attempted suicide and that's ok, we'll pay for him to recover in the hospital for six month while he dreams up new ways to die -- but not for the smoker that needs an oxygene tank at age 75....

And, for the douche bags of the world to consider.... What about really rich smokers? What about those guys who enjoy huffing down a few $50 cohibas each week? You know, the guys who pay 50% in taxes and fund the entire welfare system for the poor? The guys who pay more in PST and GST per month than some people pay in income tax in a lifetime.... I guess we should exclude them from the very system they built and support? Yeah, that's fair. Especially since many of these wealthy individual will have paid out 10000 times more than the average citizen by the time they retire.


Korbel said:
If you want real freedom to smoke then pay for your choices yourselves. Form a smoker's health care cooperative that does not impinge on the cost of health care for those who should not be paying for the cost of sicknesses YOU chose to risk. When it comes to smoking you go your way, we go ours, and we each pay for our own choices without sticking it to the other.
Smokers pay in excess of $45million per day to the Canadia gov't on point of sale tobacco taxes and this far exceeds the amount the gov't spend on tobacco illness related health care. IF nobody smoked in Canada the gov't would have a net loss. You are so uninformed it's scarry.

Using your logic, since 70% of americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, only the 30% who do approve of it should be footing the $5BILLION/month price tag... Of course those billions are going to killing more people and to sending home TENS OF THOUSANDS of soldiers with serious disabilities --- which 100% of US taxpayers are going to pay for over the next 80 years.

Korbel said:
And don't tell me your grandmother smoked for a billion years and never got any sickness due to smoking. The fact is the great majority of smokers are worse off or tragically worse off later in life and pass the costs of their health care to everyone.
Until she was 89 and she died in her sleep without one day in the hospital. And she contributed so much to society during her life that they should have built a hospital wing in her honor -- if she had needed to go there.

People are so damn righteous.....

BD
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 17, 2003
2,417
0
0
Her Hot Dreams
Visit site
Ben Dover said:
Korbel,

Wonderfully naive as usual. This is the myopic view of the tunnel-visionned non-smoker who tries to tie smoking and personal freedom together and then break them apart...
BD
Hello BD,

ARE YOU CAPABLE OF A CIVIL EXCHANGE WITHOUT INSULT...CLEARLY NOT!

The issue I addressed was smoking and this issue is the one I am dealing with. I saw the other issues Mtwallet mentioned, but smoking is the issue I chose to address becuase I have no problem generally with much of the other things he says. It's cheap to add irrelevant diversions obviously meant to escape the main point, which is that smokers impose the cost their choices/health problems on everyone...and that is a tyranny. How poor of you also to attempt to insert insinuations I never made such as "a ban" on any other personal activities, or insert issues no has yet brought up that have nothing to do with what I addressed. Is your case or argument so weak that you have to insert absurdity. Please show me where I suggested a ban on smoking or anything.

If you wish to address me again on this thread, smoking is the issue with me, and my point is the imposition on all of us for the health care cost consequneces of smoking. If you wish to discuss all the items Mtwallet cited then go address them with those interested.

And try to GROW UP enough to leave out the childish insults. Or, maybe this is just who Bend Over is.

Cheers my good pal,

Korbel

PS

What does one grandmother have to do with the tragedy of smoking consequences? My mother's mother lived to 99 as a non-smoker, but I don't see how one person could be indicative of the general conditions of this issue, so I did not mention it.
 
Last edited:

mtwallet

New Member
Jul 4, 2003
241
0
0
Montreal
Visit site
Please read what you quote

johnhenrygalt, do you read ALL of what you quote? Have another look. I said "...knowing the difference between discipline and abuse. If I cross that line, then the courts should get involved." If you were, and I'm not saying you were, raised in an abusive home, then I feel bad for you. There is a fine line when it comes to physical abuse that requires good judgment not to cross. If the government takes my right to think for myself, the end result will be a diminished ABILITY to think, and know the difference between right and wrong. You went on to speak about daily violent assaults against helpless children...in the PAST tense. Surely you don't honestly believe that child abuse is thing of the past? IMHO, that would be as ridiculous as your idea about beating the elderly.

gizmo, you're right. Canadians enjoy a great many freedoms that a helluva lot of people don't. I just feel that at this time, we have started down a very steep and slippery slope by allowing the government and special interest groups to take away our ability to think for ourselves. If we're not carefull, it won't be long before end up in Orwell's 1984.

Korbel, the post was about losing our rights. Plural. As in more than one. Not everything is about smoking. As for being a financial burden on society because of the medical requirements you assume I'll need later in life: What do you think you'll be, when you're collecting a pension cheque from the government for more years than you contributed to it?


We are the Canadian Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is impolite.
 

JH Fan

New Member
May 15, 2008
1,169
0
0
eastender said:
... The simple fact of the matter is that since 1907 the average life expectancy
has risen from 47 years to app 80 years - almost doubling, despite the fact that people indulge in various bad habits - smoking,drinking,overeating, etc,
plus society has evolved to the point where some of our advances, car and air travel require greater risk.
Yeah ! and take away smoking and over-eating we would probably top 100 nowadays !

Please ! make a better statement ! I am sure you can ! I have read many of your post and you are good do defend your point !
 

JH Fan

New Member
May 15, 2008
1,169
0
0
bensonnobalia said:
Ben-Man,

So if the smoker quits, and thus lives longer, but then later on spends ten years dying of some other cancer, with untold hundreds of thousand of public dollars spent to keep him alive...is that cheaper?
Ok lets choose another cancer than the one he will get from smoking !!! :cool:
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 17, 2003
2,417
0
0
Her Hot Dreams
Visit site
mtwallet said:
Korbel, the post was about losing our rights. Plural. As in more than one. Not everything is about smoking. As for being a financial burden on society because of the medical requirements you assume I'll need later in life: What do you think you'll be, when you're collecting a pension cheque from the government for more years than you contributed to it?
Hello Mtwallet,

Yes, understood from the start. But, please allow me "the freedom" to address certain points you brought up that I find most interesting.

As for what you say here about being a financial burden by collecting a pension, people earn pensions for their work. That is most clearly not the same as someone creating a burden by choosing to smoke in the full knowledge that it is most likely to damage them and will add enormous EXTRA cost to society that could have been prevented with a choice that would have been better for all including the smoker. I did try cigarettes for a couple of weeks when I was 13 or so. I saw how much it sucked and dumped the habit. I can't see why anyone stuck with it. It's mind boggling how much it costs everyone for so many to do something that just plain sucks anyway.

Cheers,

Korbel
 
Last edited:

JH Fan

New Member
May 15, 2008
1,169
0
0
mtwallet

Just to congratulate you because it feel so good to discharge all our garbage here. No kidding ! and I am not even saccarstic !

The thing is... it has been said many times in the past over here.

Like any who is watching what is going on in North America, you and I and everyone else can see that rights or freedom or whatever you want to call it... aren't getting any better.

But hey ! we are still in a place where rights and freedom are more than just a dream. We may not have it all and some might look totally stupid but... we still can argue about them !
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 17, 2003
2,417
0
0
Her Hot Dreams
Visit site
bensonnobalia said:
K-Man,
So if the smoker quits, and thus lives longer, but then later on spends ten years dying of some other cancer, with untold hundreds of thousand of public dollars spent to keep him alive...is that cheaper?
Hello Benson,

Well, I don't think the situation where smokers die earlier and thus have a shorter burden on society is a "good thing". The effect remains. Also the balance between what is gained from smoking profits and resulting health care costs is grossly negative.

Now, the idea that a smoker can also die from anything else unrelated to smoking is just another dodge. The facts are that the cost of health complications directly caused by smoking are an enormous percentage of health care costs. While any smoker can die from anything else also, like driving of a cliff or slipping in the bath tub, the costs of smoking consequences are perfectly distinct and not mollified by dying from other affects.

Cheers,

Korbel
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 17, 2003
2,417
0
0
Her Hot Dreams
Visit site
JH Fan said:
mtwallet

Just to congratulate you because it feel so good to discharge all our garbage here. No kidding ! and I am not even saccarstic !

The thing is... it has been said many times in the past over here.

Like any who is watching what is going on in North America, you and I and everyone else can see that rights or freedom or whatever you want to call it... aren't getting any better.

But hey ! we are still in a place where rights and freedom are more than just a dream. We may not have it all and some might look totally stupid but... we still can argue about them !
Hello JH Fan,

Yes, the usurper Bush has managed to inflict an enormous share of the damage to freedom, all in the guise of "national security". Now that's insidious.

truly,

Korbel
 
Last edited: