The nanny state is for those who need it

The “nanny state”. Pseudo-libertarians of all stripes love to use the term as a pejorative whenever a law is proposed to curb actions seen, by some, as dangerous. The nanny state exists in particular when the dangerous action is something done by an allegedly responsible adult, often but not always in a private setting. The nanny state, goes the argument, turns a grown-up making a personal behavioral choice into a child given no choice other than obey or be punished.

On the flip side is the counter argument that says no one’s “personal” choice affects on them. Everything we do affects other people in some way, and when your choice puts other people in danger, the state has every right — indeed, an irresistible responsibility — to step in and use the law to force safe behavior.

As with the ban on driving while using a cell phone. Most of us have anecdotal evidence of how dangerous the practice is. Those of us who bike and walk regularly feel the danger more clearly than those in cars. We end up closer to the driver who does not see us or who reacts poorly while both distracted and driving one-handed. We “know” first-hand the lack of control and road vision of those texting and talking while driving — one-handed. Thankfully, though, science has stepped in and pretty well proven the point.

Which, of course, makes no difference to those opposed to the growing incursions of the nanny state. I understand their resistance and frustration. The reach of government regulation, while seemingly incapable of keeping financial institutions and corporations from destroying the economy, does seem able to spoil all our fun and make doing simple things an Orwellian chore.

Unfortunately, we spend most of our lives in situations where individual choice is trumped by the greater good. Your need to keep in touch with your closest friends matters much less than the need of those with whom you share the road to ensure you are driving as safely as possible. If you are texting, you are not; and the more we learn how unsafe texting while driving is — and it’s a well-established fact now — those who persist in doing so demonstrate the need for a nanny to force them to behave properly.

Like bicycling with a helmet on. The argument against is that I’m an adult, it’s my body and my choice. Which is a good, traditional argument, the kind we can imagine the Duke making had he ever traded his six-guns for 18-speeds. To the counter, speaking as someone who is alive only because I was wearing a helmet when a car hit me and sent me flying through the air, I can list those who would have suffered terribly had I made the “adult” choice to not wear a helmet: my sons, my father, my brother and sister, those I work with, my friends and even the woman who hit me. The outcomes of such a “personal” choice would have reverberated throughout my circle of friends, family and colleagues.

There is no distinct line be “me” and “you”. Never has been, whatever some may argue about “back then”. Humans are a species that rely on one another for survival and for progress. Selfish behavior is, in every sense, destructive behavior. Privacy and personal choice are valuable and we need to protect these to the extent possible, but that extent must always be limited to the well-being of other people. “I” never have precedence over others. That is the path to annihilation.

Of course, determining what are reasonable and proper limitations on individual choice is the big trick. We have science to help us in many areas, and common sense is a big help. In the end, however, what we require more than anything else is the decision by each individual to place a greater value on the safety, rights and needs of other persons than their own. Not at all times in all things, but when it’s a matter of nothing more than a personal liberty, like wearing a bike helmet or not using a cell phone while driving; or when facing the fact that the planet can’t sustain much more of our Western mode of life.

You may call it a nanny state. I say you brought it on yourself by acting like a spoiled child.