The Sunday Star Times has an editorial scolding us for using the term 'nanny state'. Defending the draconian anti-smacking law, it claims:
On banning junk food from schools, the author insists (in typical nanny-speak) that the Govt "must do what it can to prevent.. harm" and that it "is justified in trying to save adolescents from themselves." It assumes teens and parents are hopeless at decision making and incapable of self-help. The article rightly notes that many agree, "The government is treating its citizens like babies." Indeed. Only an arrogant, paternalistic Govt believes its people can't be trusted to make choices without the meddling hand of officials and bureaucrats.
The author claims the phrase 'social engineering' is empty abuse, and that: "It's time to drop [the term 'nanny state'] from the political lexicon." Such linguistic censorship is a favoured tactic of nannies: futile attempts to silence critics, or frame the debate on their terms. Regardless of the label, people recognise the nanny-state at work, unnecessary & unwelcome government intrusions that curtail liberties.
[PC has a fine list of examples of our "nanny state gone berserk"]
All in all, it's unsurprising that the Times publishes these feeble justifications for the Left's plans for complete despotic control of NZ. Editor, Cate Brett, is an avid Labour supporter who never fails to (ab)use her to position to promote Helen Clark's brand of socialism, particularly near election time. This is but one reason I never buy the Times: it might encourages her to print more pro-Labour garbage, and I'd hate to think I helped fund those who'd wish to muzzle my freedoms.
"It is right... that the government should support [parents] in finding other ways of correcting their kids"But the govt hasn't 'supported' parents, it has coerced them against the will of the overwhelming majority. Coercion isn't support. Such semantic distortions are typical of self-righteous authoritarians, completely dismissive of the wishes and opinions of those whose wellbeing they claim to champion. The editorial reckons:
"The "nanny state" is a cliche and an obstacle to clear thought."Yet the article is filled with unproven or unsupported assumptions muddying the debate, e.g.: obesity is a serious public health problem; obesity 'victims' will cram hospital wards in 20 years (is nanny state clairvoyant? do people never decide to join gyms or go on diets?); the average smoker starts at 14 1/2; adults rarely begin smoking (many do, funnily enough, to help keep the weight down); the activities of tobacco companies are immoral (is profit-making and satisfying consumers' demands immoral?); 14 year olds are incapable of making rational choices; the new anti-smacking laws won't criminalise good parents.
On banning junk food from schools, the author insists (in typical nanny-speak) that the Govt "must do what it can to prevent.. harm" and that it "is justified in trying to save adolescents from themselves." It assumes teens and parents are hopeless at decision making and incapable of self-help. The article rightly notes that many agree, "The government is treating its citizens like babies." Indeed. Only an arrogant, paternalistic Govt believes its people can't be trusted to make choices without the meddling hand of officials and bureaucrats.
The author claims the phrase 'social engineering' is empty abuse, and that: "It's time to drop [the term 'nanny state'] from the political lexicon." Such linguistic censorship is a favoured tactic of nannies: futile attempts to silence critics, or frame the debate on their terms. Regardless of the label, people recognise the nanny-state at work, unnecessary & unwelcome government intrusions that curtail liberties.
[PC has a fine list of examples of our "nanny state gone berserk"]
All in all, it's unsurprising that the Times publishes these feeble justifications for the Left's plans for complete despotic control of NZ. Editor, Cate Brett, is an avid Labour supporter who never fails to (ab)use her to position to promote Helen Clark's brand of socialism, particularly near election time. This is but one reason I never buy the Times: it might encourages her to print more pro-Labour garbage, and I'd hate to think I helped fund those who'd wish to muzzle my freedoms.
3 comments:
These days you can't even drink a beer in the street without looking over your shoulder to make sure there are no cops or security gaurds ready to pounce. I guess the government just wants to create doubts in the minds of parents of parents who smack by passing that law.
It's the thin edge of the wedge or rather the blunt end of the mallet with regards to the gummints attack on parents.
As far as muzzling freedoms are concerned, this gummint are such control freaks that they are willing to allow secret trust donations to finance election campaigns whilst putting the kibosh to any worthwhile dissent by putting a cap on third party donations...grrrrr. I shall rest in the knowledge that they are likely to be dog tucker at the next polls...caaallmmmm.
As a parent I am so paranoidedly conscious about who is looking when my kids play up in public. I worry that even 'taking the tone' and informing them that their behaviour is out of line will be interpreted as some threat of abuse for when they get home. (Which it's not - paranois strikes again)
You get a pay-rise you have to tell the governmnet because it affects working for families, accomodation supplement and your community services card. (And then you end up losing more money than your pay-rise nets you anyway - see working example here: Statism and Wealth Re-Distribution)
As for the junk food thing, my kids love it when their school runs "5+ a day" week and the kids come home trotting out their brainwashing from nanny state as thats the one week of the year they are allowed nothing but junk food in their lunchboxes. I actually buy packets of chips and biccies and lollies and pies (things they never normally have) and fill their lunchboxes with them - we even have special clear drinkbottles just for that week they can use to show off their brightly flavoured beverages - I am so naughty!
Let's hope they are finally gone this time next week!
Post a Comment