Do you underfuckingstand?

There is absolutely no talk of any sort of “health and safety inspectors”, but better usage of existing data and better recording of existing reports of risks. Based on that, *offer* (not enforce) risk assessments, and where there’s a risk identified on that basis *offer* (not enforce, and not at the homeowner’s expense) equipment to reduce that risk.

More, it explicitly states: “Children and young people learn by taking risks and challenging themselves when playing and in other activities”

The only thing is suggests which is remotely “orwellian” is for further legislation on home safety standards, and bluntly there are things still allowed in UK building codes which are manifestly unsafe, and this has needed attention for years.

If you really believe that as a matter of principle that taking kids away from parents is Orwellian, we’ve been living in an Orwellian society for several decades, at a minimum.

Did you realize that the state also compels parents to feed, clothe and educate their children? How can they justify this Orwellian intrusion on the propetry rights of adults to tend to their juvenile human chattel as they see fit. It’s an outrage!

Classical libertarian theory, so far as I understand it, does not deal well with the issue of the rights, responsibility, care and protection of children, because children seem to be an exception to the general principle that individuals own themselves.

I think I get your point, but taking your kids away is a bit farther along than banning smoking in bars.

There’s also an irony in the use of the term “nanny state” in the post. Nanny state, after all, is a pejorative description of a government that “protects” adults as if they were children who don’t know what’s best for themselves. Here, it’s being applied to a government proposal to protect children who don’t know what’s best for themselves. Is the message that adults don’t need a nanny–and children don’t either?

Nothing against businesses like yours. I have just become very suspicious lately of business and government collusion. In my county, Cuayhoga county Ohio, there are ongoing FBI investigations of a couple county commisioners and the county auditors office for kickbacks and bribes. I could see this affecting at a local level with safety inspectors steering business to local businesses connected to the local government and large companies that manufacture devices lobbying congress. That is if this ever came here.

Keep in mind that just because he’s got some passion about the subject doesn’t mean bad things. I disagree with him and I’m passionate about the subject, but I see his style of disagreement as another opportunity to discuss the subject.

Most of what he’s saying is just about the word, “Orewellian” and how he disagrees with its usage. Technically speaking I can understand every point he’s made as actually having some foundation in one style of reasoned thinking or another. It’s the conclusions we disagree about, and I’m inferring a few other disagreements as well.

I’m also guessing that going off half-cocked about libertarians is why he’s gotten the number of down votes as well.

Good responses for the most part, just try not to drive him out of the discussion, I’d like to hear some more (but maybe that’s just me being a fan of drama ).

I just dropped my wife off at the airport this morning. We walked into an almost empty airport, walked directly up to the ticket counter, checked her bag, and then proceeded up the escalator toward the gates. There, in what might have otherwise been a nearly vacant terminal, was a long zigzag line of people winding back and forth as people patiently waited their turn to get through the security screening. Under the watchful eye of the TSA, you don’t dare tell a joke or make any disparaging remarks about how slow and inefficient they are. You stand there, making the effort to look carefree, nonthreatening, and most of all, respectful. You sense that you are trying to pass a test based entirely on the subtleties of your behavior. Your entire day, if not your entire trip depends on whether just one of these “screeners” singles you out for special treatment. After you’re through, you breath a sigh of relief. You’ve made it past the one hurdle of your expedition ruled entirely by a bureaucracy over which you have no control.

Britain is on the fast track toward making that a way of life, not just in airports, but in all public places. And, from there, they will bring it into people’s homes. Once legitimized in Europe, the “land of the free” is certain to follow suit. The idea that government control over people’s everyday lives, in order to be a real threat, must take on a particular look as spelled out by history or some work of fiction, is so ludicrous that it’s stunning that anyone would even suggest it.

Danny, as others have said, we have to oppose this in order to avoid becomming an Orwellian state. I haven’t seen any evidence that it can be stopped however. Maybe slowed. Maybe.

+0http://www.babyproofernewyork.com/

“It’s a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.”

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html

Danny, as others have said, we have to oppose this in order to avoid becomming an Orwellian state. I haven’t seen any evidence that it can be stopped however. Maybe slowed. Maybe.

USA! USA! USA! (heh heh…I actually laughed at myself typing that last part as I picture myself as a frothing at the mouth patriot who’s governent can’t do any wrong). Now where can I go buy on of those big over sized foam rubber #1 finger thingys in red, white and blue so I can pick my large, over sized nostrils with it?

#31 Bad Medicine

Once the government starts paying for health care, they can intrude all they want into our lives in the name of “saving the taxpayers money” by getting rid of anything that increases healthcare costs.

Have you noticed the sudden flurry of studies coming out telling women they don’t need as many breast and cervical cancer screenings as was once thought. I’m sure that’s just new knowledge replacing old knowledge, but I still find it interesting given the interest government has in reducing health care costs (as it takes on more of that cost itself).