This is freaking ridiculous

[il Padrino Ute]

While I won't defend this woman, UD brings up the key point here. Even those who mindlessly cry "nanny staters!" at anyone who wonders about corporate responsibility still need to consider whether they want their kids being directly marketed to by companies selling junk food, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, porn, drugs, prostitution, etc. It quickly becomes obvious that a line must be drawn somewhere; the only question is where.

Are candy ads during Sesame Street ok? Are Coke ads/machines in elementary schools ok?

If parents act like parents, those ads won't affect their kids as much as liberal buttinskis think they do.

[woot]

If parents act like parents, those ads won't affect their kids as much as liberal buttinskis think they do.

I'm sure this is true for you, what with your ridiculous view of how said "liberal buttinskis" think. The reality is that advertisement directed to children has an enormous effect on kids' behavior, and in many cases there is absolutely nothing a parent can do about it.

But if this is really your stance, I'll assume you won't mind if tobacco and liquor companies have access to schools?

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm sure this is true for you, what with your ridiculous view of how said "liberal buttinskis" think. The reality is that advertisement directed to children has an enormous effect on kids' behavior, and in many cases there is absolutely nothing a parent can do about it.

But if this is really your stance, I'll assume you won't mind if tobacco and liquor companies have access to schools?

Spoken like one who isn't a parent.

As I said, if parents act like parents, the ads don't have the effect you think they do.

[thesaint258]

Next up is the lawsuit against Toys R Us for all of their toy ads.

[Jacob]

Even those who mindlessly cry "nanny staters!" at anyone who wonders about corporate responsibility still need to consider whether they want their kids being directly marketed to by companies selling junk food, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, porn, drugs, prostitution, etc. It quickly becomes obvious that a line must be drawn somewhere; the only question is where.

Are candy ads during Sesame Street ok? Are Coke ads/machines in elementary schools ok?

It is not at all obvious to me that such a line must be drawn. Candies during Sesame Street? No problem. Coke in elementary school? No skin off my back. We are living in quite the wonderful country that some people worry about such things.

Had this accident happened years ago, they would likely all be dead. Deaths from auto accidents per miles driven are much lower than at anytime in our history.

Here are some facts:

In 2009 there were about 1.16 fatalities for every 100,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled. In 2005, that figure was 1.46.

True that's an improvement. But I don't think it is at all clear that 0.4 fatalities per 100 million miles driven is sufficient to justify all the nanny state laws and enforcement.

[woot]

It is not at all obvious to me that such a line must be drawn. Candies during Sesame Street? No problem. Coke in elementary school? No skin off my back. We are living in quite the wonderful country that some people worry about such things.



Here are some facts:


True that's an improvement. But I don't think it is at all clear that 0.4 fatalities per 100 million miles driven is sufficient to justify all the nanny state laws and enforcement.

Hah try looking at the stats from the 70s before all the "nanny state" laws existed.

[Jacob]

Hah try looking at the stats from the 70s before all the "nanny state" laws existed.

I think the laws requiring people to wear seatbelts are new to the last decade.

[UtahDan]

Hah try looking at the stats from the 70s before all the "nanny state" laws existed.

I agree. There does need to be some balance here. There is an awful lot that we are protected from now that we were not formally because of the "nanny state" and, frankly, because of plaintiff's attorneys. Of course there are excesses on both of those fronts, but people ought not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This argument is over where to draw the line. No one wants vehicles that explode when you rear end them, chemicals to be dumped near neighborhoods, food and medicine that is not safe, or for dangerous things to be marketed to our children. Not even the free-est of free-marketeers want human beings to suffer and sometimes die as part of a process whereby consumers learn that some products are dangerous and ought not be purchased. That there ought to be gatekeepers and protections on these things is, in my mind, really beyond intelligent debate. I say that only because I don't think the larger concepts some are trying to put in play in this thread are really in play when anyone reflects upon them.

So my point is, let's talk about what the nanny state should do. That is the real question. No one wants to rewind 100 years.

[Jacob]

Not even the free-est of free-marketeers want human beings to suffer and sometimes die as part of a process whereby consumers learn that some products are dangerous and ought not be purchased.

Of course nobody wants them to die. But in that sense the statement is meaningless. People dieing as part of a process whereby consumers learn that some products are dangerous is an inevitable consequence of the free-market system. And it is an acceptable consequence.

[UtahDan]

Of course nobody wants them to die. But in that sense the statement is meaningless. People dieing as part of a process whereby consumers learn that some products are dangerous is an inevitable consequence of the free-market system. And it is an acceptable consequence.

That is a disgusting sentiment.

[Indy Coug]

That is a disgusting sentiment.

Since it is impossible to guarantee the safety of a product being released to the public, the clear inference is that some level of mortality is an acceptable outcome because it is outweighed by the benefit derived from that product.

[TripletDaddy]

Out of curiosity, can someone list a few of these nanny-state laws that are troublesome?

The main ones I generally hear are auto-related...seatbelt and speeding laws. However, even if those laws were repealed today there is no way I would let my children ride sans seatbelts.

What are examples of ones that have cropped up in the past decade or two that bother/negatively affect you?

[creekster]

That is a disgusting sentiment.

Disgusting? I don't think so. He isn't suggesting that any particular person die (although hopefully it will be the really dumb ones before the breed) but only that some risk is acceptable in order to obtain greater benefits (as Indy points out). It is a calculation we all make all the time. We accept it as a part of life.

[UtahDan]

Since it is impossible to guarantee the safety of a product being released to the public, the clear inference is that some level of mortality is an acceptable outcome because it is outweighed by the benefit derived from that product.

And therefore what? We should cease our efforts to make things safe? Don't you agree with me that it is a question of where the line is drawn?

My argument (in part) was that no one really believes that you remove the safeguards and just let lots of people get hurt and die as part of a process of market adjustment. Jacob apparently thinks that is okay.

[woot]

That is a disgusting sentiment.

I was about to respond that while the points you listed are certainly, as you say "beyond intelligent debate" that won't stop the debate from happening on this forum. There really are a lot of people like Jacob who insist that the market will handle everything, and that corporations who kill people should have no responsibility.