America is sometimes deemed as the nanny state for making so many rules and regulations for it's people. It's a term that explains that America has grown too big for it's britches and attempts to overstep their own boundaries, which is a belief that I'm sort of in the middle on. In the article, Three Cheers for the Nanny State, the author talks about why it's not that bad. I personally think that America is trying too hard to be fair and equal by only listening to the majority. I personally feel like it's impossible to be fair or act like you know best when only a percentage of the people are being catered to. In the article, it spoke about the soda ban. It's not a very big loss; you're not losing the ability to drink soda, or obtain soda, it just means you can't buy huge amounts of soda in bulk. While yes, it sucks for when you're trying to buy for parties or what have you, it's not a good enough example to carry on the argument that America is not overstepping boundaries. An example of America overstepping is Wickard v. Filburn. A farmer had too much wheat by two hundred some bushels - no anchors, not even square feet, but bushels. And the American government swaggered in and claimed that he was doing something incredibly wrong and must be fined for it. He said, "Well, no, I'm actually just feeding my cows with this stuff it's no biggie. I'm not selling it." So the government gets their panties in a twist and eventually this case goes up to the Supreme Court, and it's ruled against the little farmer trying to feed his cows. That's an example of America overstepping their boundaries and enforcing laws that limit the people, and are just flat out not fair.
Laws can't be conditional. I get that. But when a farmer feeding his cows, not selling the wheat he was producing, has two hundred more bushels than he legally should, shouldn't that warrant a warning from the police coming over? Shouldn't they have told the farmer, "Hey can you get rid of those bushels in two weeks? If not, we'll fine you. If so, make sure it doesn't happen again." If the law is broken by a landslide, where the farmer had 200 more anchors of wheat, then that definitely calls for a hefty fine. Government regulation is important to make sure that we don't do anything we want, since that would entail chaos. But regulation that severe is silly. It really does give America seem like a nanny, and we're the kids that she has to deal with. The article argued that no laws would be passed if we were afraid of one law escalating into laws that aren't benefiting to us being passed, but that does happen. Do you guys remember the Patriot Act? How that violates almost every right we have in the Constitution? That's an example of the government thinking they know best and passing a law that violates our rights in an attempt to protect us. Protect us from what? A group of twentysomethings practicing their 1st Amendment rights? I don't think so.
This article attempts to make everything the government is doing practical, but is using a soda ban for their main argument. No one is going to be very mad if they can't buy a 32oz thing of soda. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the government acting like strict parents that don't want you out past 10 on weekends. That go beyond a soda ban, and to the extent of passing a law that violates our rights, or creating regulations that make things nearly impossible for the minority but fantastic for the majority. Some people believe others know what's best for you. It may be the best for the majority, but what about the minority? It might harm the minority, or make something nearly impossible for the minority. So does someone really know best? Can the government really know best? I don't think so.
Laws can't be conditional. I get that. But when a farmer feeding his cows, not selling the wheat he was producing, has two hundred more bushels than he legally should, shouldn't that warrant a warning from the police coming over? Shouldn't they have told the farmer, "Hey can you get rid of those bushels in two weeks? If not, we'll fine you. If so, make sure it doesn't happen again." If the law is broken by a landslide, where the farmer had 200 more anchors of wheat, then that definitely calls for a hefty fine. Government regulation is important to make sure that we don't do anything we want, since that would entail chaos. But regulation that severe is silly. It really does give America seem like a nanny, and we're the kids that she has to deal with. The article argued that no laws would be passed if we were afraid of one law escalating into laws that aren't benefiting to us being passed, but that does happen. Do you guys remember the Patriot Act? How that violates almost every right we have in the Constitution? That's an example of the government thinking they know best and passing a law that violates our rights in an attempt to protect us. Protect us from what? A group of twentysomethings practicing their 1st Amendment rights? I don't think so.
This article attempts to make everything the government is doing practical, but is using a soda ban for their main argument. No one is going to be very mad if they can't buy a 32oz thing of soda. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the government acting like strict parents that don't want you out past 10 on weekends. That go beyond a soda ban, and to the extent of passing a law that violates our rights, or creating regulations that make things nearly impossible for the minority but fantastic for the majority. Some people believe others know what's best for you. It may be the best for the majority, but what about the minority? It might harm the minority, or make something nearly impossible for the minority. So does someone really know best? Can the government really know best? I don't think so.