search
top

The Nanny State Comes from Voters

Remember that the nanny state isn’t just the work of power-hungry politicians looking to control every aspect of your lives. There are people who actually purposefully support this kind of control because they want all types of fun by others that might possibly disrupt their bubble to be banned. Think I’m kidding? This report come from the York, PA reporter seemingly in charge of the local beat today:

Think about that for a moment. A woman called the emergency services line to report that the government needs to put a stop to other people’s fun because it may be disrupting her cats. She may be a little off, but there’s a good chance that she would actually consider this a reasonable use of force to send a police officer with a gun after someone who simply frightened her cat. And she’s likely allowed to vote. There is no minimum sanity requirement for voting.

21 Responses to “The Nanny State Comes from Voters”

  1. Erin Palette says:

    If people want to play with explosive devices and risk losing an eye or a hand or other serious injury, God bless ‘em.

    But I draw the line at them using airborne incendiaries in the neighborhood where I live. They don’t have the right to risk setting my house on fire.

    • mike says:

      And they don’t have the right to propel their two tons of flammable liquid powered steel down the road either, where just the slightest sneeze and nudge of the steering wheel could send their car barreling through your living room. Oh, the humanity.

      – or –

      Lighten up, Francis. And get over yourself.

      • Erin Palette says:

        The difference here is that cars have these things called steering wheels and brakes, whereas fireworks have no such controls.

        Also, Florida is chronically under risk of wildfires throughout the summer months. We launch our pyrotechnic displays over the ocean or other bodies of water, for crying out loud.

        So no, Mike, I’m not going to lighten up. Throughout the past month I’ve had TWO fires in my neighborhood. Bad enough that I have to deal with lightning starting a fires — I don’t need idiots giving mother nature help.

        I now await your apology.

        • mike says:

          Keep waiting, Francis. Your irrational fears don’t trump peoples’ freedom to behave responsibly in ways that frighten you but cause you no harm. Irresponsible behavior, sure, no problem. But there are already remedies for irresponsible behavior that don’t involve everyone else being confined by your fears.

          I now await your getting over yourself.

          • Erin Palette says:

            Irrational fears. Let’s unpack that.

            If you believe that fireworks can’t start fires, you’re demonstrably wrong.

            If you believe that my county currently isn’t under fire conditions, read this recent report. We have FIVE MAJOR FIRES that are “contained”. That means “We can’t put it out, so we’ll surround it and hope it burns itself out.”

            I’d say this makes my concerns utterly reasonable. I’ll also add that amateurs shooting pyrotechnics during a burn ban is pretty much the exact opposite of “responsible behavior”.

            • mike says:

              And how many of those fires were caused by fireworks? To the nearest zero, please. You know, there was a pedestrian hit by a car around the block from me not too long ago. And yet, they still let both cars and pedestrians on that very street. By your reasoning, cars, pedestrians, outdoor grilles, folks smoking cigarettes, and kids with magnifying lenses should all be banned because it’ll make you feel better. That is, until you discover that the Earth is filled with molten rock heated to thousands of degrees. Right under that dry vegetation of yours, too.

              Get over yourself, thanks!

              • Erin Palette says:

                By your reasoning, cars, pedestrians, outdoor grilles, folks smoking cigarettes, and kids with magnifying lenses should all be banned because it’ll make you feel better.

                Multiple logical fallacies. You lose, I win.

                • mike says:

                  Way to get over yourself. Wow.

                  • Mike,

                    Those of us in high fire risk areas aren’t irrational, nor calling the police because our pets are fearful. Here in Arizona, we have burn bans, bans on using Tannerite, shooting bans, and smoking restrictions because of the fire danger right now. Arizona is still a free state. While I share the concept of “making people responsible,” many don’t realize how combustible our Fed controlled lands are right now. Environmental restrictions make some behaviors extremely dangerous for other people. Calling nanny state to calm your pet is much different than wondering how many more of your friends will lose their houses this year.

                    Please feel free to make a donation through the 100 Club of Arizona.

                  • SPQR says:

                    A lot of us hope that Erin never “gets over herself”.

                • SPQR says:

                  Hear hear Erin.

          • Geodkyt says:

            Mike,

            There is NO “responsible” way to use aerial fireworks over wooded ground cover in a fire risk zone. You simply cannot control the fire hazard well enough, just as there is no way to responsibly hunt deer with a .300 Win Mag in a crowded city park.

            I say this as someone who was almost grilled well done when our LRS-D guys set fire to the woods by accident on an exercise, using pyrotechnics that are a HELL of a lot better made than consumer grade fireworks. Managed to do it even without the area being under a fire watch. . .

            What Erin is talking about is a region that is slightly less flammable right now than an open box of kitchen matches.

    • Andy B. says:

      “They don’t have the right to risk setting my house on fire.”

      First stipulating that fireworks tend to annoy me too, anymore, I have to say that level of risk is best handled by tort law and civil liability rather than prohibitions. Mike’s example above is a good one; we address the risks of cars by making people liable for the damage done by them.

      • Erin Palette says:

        Assuming we can determine which of the morons started the fire, sure, I’m more than happy to sue them into oblivion if they cause damage to my property. Unfortunately, I am bracketed by people on either side of the street setting off pyrotechnics, and I have several acres of woods behind my house.

        If it was only their houses at risk, I wouldn’t care. Burn your house down, lose a hand, I don’t care. Shooting burning embers into the sky where the wind can take them wherever it wills, possibly onto dry vegetation behind my house? Screw that.

  2. Sterling Archer says:

    “…..And she’s likely allowed to vote. There is no minimum sanity requirement for voting.”

    Anyone want to guess her party affiliation? Just wild speculation on my part but I will assume she is a reliable “D”.

  3. Scott Connors says:

    It amazes me that California won’t let me drop a mag on my AR-clone without using a tool, yet in the week leading up to the 4th you can’t go a block in any city without finding a fireworks stand, in a state that is only slightly less flammable than a mountain of thermite. Just sayin’.

  4. Ursa Ele says:

    I do not believe in turning to the government to solve my problems, nor do I want government to control people with a bunch of rules. Fireworks shows used to be for celebrations, but now they are held all over the place, very often, for nothing more than routine entertainment. Often the fireworks displays are put on by government entities. Often they use my tax money to do it. In those situations, petitioning government for redress of grievances — a Constitutionally protected right — is appropriate. If my grievance is that the fireworks being put on by government is bothering my dog, then I do have a right to let them know about my grievance and to ask them to restrain themselves from further bothering of my dog. These fireworks shows and displays are as much a nuisance to the general public as it would be for me to blast my stereo on my front lawn at 10 o’clock at night to entertain a party of a few hundred of my friends. Not a one of you would be critical of a neighbor for calling the police to deal with my stereo, but you are critical of a neighbor calling the police to deal with a noise complaint about the fireworks. Like I said, I don’t need or want government to solve my problems (e.g., loud noises from fireworks shows that bother my dog) but I also do not need or want government to CAUSE my problems (e.g., loud noises from fireworks shows that bother my dog).

    The fireworks thing is not special, not fun, not unique, not anything but manifestly annoying. It needs to stop.

  5. Kenn says:

    In the words of Robert Heinlein, “Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.” Her and her cat.

  6. WhiskeyWasOnceMoney says:

    To Erin Palette’s point, I fully understand the desire to shake one’s bottle rockets in the tyrant’s face. But most folks, if they even suspected that it was their bottle rocket what started the fire what burnt down half the neighborhood, would suddenly discover the Bilbo Baggins defense: “Bottle rockets? No thank you. Nasty unpleasant things. Make you late for dinner!”

    and the Bart Simpson defense: “Ididn’tdoitnobodysawmedoityoucan’tproveanything!”

    When it comes to firearms, I have preached to my children over and over, “Once it leaves the barrel you can’t call it back, but you’re still responsible for where it lands.” The same goes for fireworks…but we stick to fountains and sparklers and smoke factories because I can’t afford to pay weregild to half the neighborhood.

  7. borekfk says:

    So people have to stop celebrating responsibly, because someone else complained about, which that someone has the government stop it. Yep sounds like a nanny state.

  8. Jeff O says:

    Mike, et.al. : the sale and use of fireworks without a permit, other than sparklers, is illegal in PA and has been since the 1930’s. Asking police to enforce existing laws isn’t a bad thing. This old bat’s rationale is just a bit off!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. News, Opinions, and Cartoons for the day after the Fourth of July | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots - [...] The Nanny State Comes from Voters [...]
top