Freedom vs. safety rambling musings

[beth_leonard]

Because of Jon's blog post, I was reminded recently of the incidents in 1989 during the fall of the Berlin wall. That was a really significant event in my life. Freedom was always an important value to me. In 1984, I remember my mother reading the book "1984" and sneaking a peak at the first few chapters out of curiosity. I got as far as the Ministry of Love before I was caught, and I had nightmares for weeks.

Some of the images are still vivid for me -- I dreamed there were people escaping the oppression through the sewers, and one popped his head up in the toilet in our house. As a young child I had to decide whether to flush him down or allow him to escape through our house. Faced with the decision, I woke up.

"It's a free country"

"...with Liberty and Justice for all"

Liberties, freedoms, our ability to make choices for ourselves is a core value that goes to the fundamental heart of who I am. I was struck by a sense of sadness this evening as I realized not only how much that has been eroding with all of the nanny-state laws we've passed (I've been sad about that for ages) but how those nanny-state laws will affect the next generation of children.

What decisions will those children make as adults? What will they value? Will they value liberty when they have grown up in a world where 7 year olds must be in a booster seat every single time they ride in a car, based on dubious science. When children are not allowed to be left in a car at all, while a parent returns a grocery cart? When you have to be practically strip-searched to get on an airplane, and your grandparents can't meet you at the gate? When you can be monitored by video or GPS, everywhere, anytime.

When decisions about what kind of car you are allowed to drive and what kinds of food or toys can be served at fast-food restaurants are made by the state and not the individuals, for what is right for them in their circumstance, in a world where they hear their parents grumble about the laws, or see people blatantly disregarding them (think hands-free cell phone laws, or carpool cheaters) how will our children's generation value liberty? How will they value rule-of-law?

Liberty is the freedom to make your own mistakes, and justice is the consequences for when you make mistakes that intrude on the liberties of others.

If my children live in a city when a wall is erected, will they turn the other way and pretend it doesn't exist? If the wall is opened for just a few hours and then closed, will they value freedom and jump the wall? Or safety of the known, and stay home?

Perhaps we have all these nanny-state laws in the first place because the previous generation post WW-II was raised in relative safety and security?

--Beth

Comments

[steuard.livejournal.com]

My high-school science teacher Mr. Winemiller (who was awesome, by the way) felt similarly about the "nanny state" laws that had been enacted in his lifetime. But I think I took the opposite lesson from some of his stories than he intended.

One that I remember vividly was his complaint about the mandate that new cars must have seat belts. When he was growing up, his father had the freedom to install seat belts on his own (and did, using a kit from the auto shop) because he thought they were a good idea, but wasn't forced to pay for them if he didn't want them.

I could understand his point, and there was truth and value in his call for individual responsibility. But the big lesson that I took from it was that automakers didn't start even offering seat belts as a feature in a lot of cars until the government forced them to. The free market was apparently in some sort of "local minimum": the people who really, really cared invested the money and effort to get seat belts themselves, and everyone else went without. Once they were mandated, though, everyone had them and a whole lot of people used them, and a whole lot of lives were saved. Better yet, I'm awfully confident that my built-in seat belt today is both safer and more convenient than whatever the heck old grandpa Winemiller installed with that kit of his.

I'm not going to say that every "nanny state" law is a good one (I've seriously rolled my eyes at things like Chicago's foie gras ban). But some of them really are worthwhile on balance: there's some happy medium that we as a society have to find, and it's probably good that we have a range of opinions to force us to think carefully about what it should be.

Finally, I don't think we're living in a horrible nanny state dystopia today that will warp your children beyond redemption. You grew up loving liberty, after all, despite your car's built-in seat belts, and despite all those other government mandates that surrounded you at the time, like not allowing melamine in milk, or requiring states and businesses to recognize interracial marriages, or even forbidding public school teachers from leading their classes in prayer. I'm pretty sure our kids are going to be okay, too.

[feuervogel]

Personally, I'd like the freedom to make decisions about my own reproduction without a bunch of Republican congressMEN thinking they know more about my life than I do.

[beth_leonard]

Absolutely! And, while I'm not among them, there are a lot of people I know who would love to explore alternative medicine and other substances inside their bodies that the government does not allow. I'd rather be allowed the liberty to make those choices.

--Beth

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

?

I'm confused by this. Alternative medicine is currently allowed by the government.

...wait, did you mean weed?

[beth_leonard]

*nod* Weed for medicinal use is even legal in CA, but not federally. I'd never use it myself for the reasons most people do, but I don't think the world is a better place for having it federally illegal.
--Beth

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, prohibition makes me crazy. I'm like you and not all that into it personally, but the social cost of prohibition is staggering. People in overcrowded, expensive prisons who shouldn't be, people dead because of the market forced underground, and oh god Mexico what is that I can't even.

My going theory these days is that prohibition is still in effect because we've allowed so much privatization of the prison system that there is money in acquiring as many prisoners as possible, so weed stays illegal. That, and no politician (except Ron Paul, who's a weird case) can touch the issue and get elected because there's still a huge social stigma against it. Prison money is the only way that makes any kind of sense, because otherwise there's a TON of money to be made in legalization: it would create jobs, generate huge tax revenue, and boy would the tobacco companies be happy because they could jump right in and make enormous profits.

The other factor is that the alcohol industry lobbies against legalization because they see it as a direct competitor, but I don't know how large a factor that actually is.

[beth_leonard]

I figure we have at least a generation (maybe another 30 years) until substantial changes can be made to the drug laws. The boomers grew up in the 60's with the society labeling all drug use as wrong, but still seeing lots of people doing it, and witnessing many of the ways it can go badly.

That generation largely wants to keep it illegal, although there are of course many exceptions, and I think many from that generation are softening their stance.

Our generation came of age hearing president Clinton "didn't inhale" (yeah right) and not trusting the horror stories of drugs gone bad. With the information available to our generation from sources other than the "just say no" campaign, as well as to the generations behind us, I think there's a chance for an eventual shift, just as attitudes towards LGBT issues are changing.

This kind of change takes time, but I think it's headed in that direction.

--Beth

[feuervogel]

Alternative medicine is a load of crap, tbqh. If it works, it's called "medicine." There's no such thing as chi, reiki is as real as homeopathy, and that Burzynski fellow belongs in jail.

You continue to vote Republican, yes? It's Republicans who have expanded the War On (some people who use) Drugs, who started the three strikes laws, and who thought privatizing the prison system was a great idea (spoiler: it wasn't). It's Republicans who are denying (or trying to) women the right of self-determination, couples who love each other the right to marry, and a whole host of other liberties that men and straight people (for example) take for granted.

Though the Republican state has been called the Daddy State. It's an apt descriptor, reflecting their paternalistic, authoritarian policies.

[beth_leonard]

I don't vote republican because I like them, it's because I think they're the best available alternative. Republicans go after bedrooms and Democrats go after small businesses in the same way.

When Jon went back to work full time we decided to hire someone to fold the laundry and cook dinner once/week for 4 hrs/week. It took me more than 8 hours to figure out how to legally pay her, and that's including the eventual decision to go with intuit payroll.

Democrats make rules to try to protect working people, which end up driving workers underground with no protections at all in far to many instances. I think the unintended consequences of democratic policies are more dangerous than the republican ones, in general.

--Beth

[feuervogel]

That may be because the "unintended" consequences of Republican policy aren't exactly unintended. I'm highly skeptical, for example, that Republican laws restricting access to abortion (such as ones that want clinics to be held to the same standards as hospitals) have anything to do with safety concerns, just keeping those dirty sluts from avoiding the punishment for their actions.

Or "right to work" laws, which only serve to make it easy for bosses to fire people without cause (or for completely made-up causes).

The catsitter we hire when we go out of town is a legally bonded and licensed small business (with a few other employees, even). The other catsitter who's a vet tech? We pay her the same way as one pays babysitters.

[beth_leonard]

Is she paying income tax on the money you pay her, or is she just accepting the money under the table? There's a difference between a contractor and employee -- if the contractor takes other contracts from other people and pays their own business taxes (15% for both the personal and employer portions of Social security and medicare), much like our gardener, then it's easy to pay someone to render a service.

If the person doesn't own their own business, and pay their own business taxes (our housekeeper is incapable of this feat) you are required to treat them as a Household Employee. You're supposed to pay social security taxes on your babysitters and pet sitters.

--Beth

[feuervogel]

AFAIK she's a contractor, or she gets paid under the table. And I'm sure the IRS is going to come down on it so hard :/ Like your average high school girl pays taxes on her babysitting money.

She's not our employee by any means.

BTW, I still think the unintended consequences of Democratic policies are actually unintended, while those of Republican policies aren't. They know full well that deregulation will lead to their friends/cronies getting rich and screwing everyone else.

[beth_leonard]

I'm not arguing that there is no place for government -- I think the government should still provide rule of law and contract enforcement, and end tyranny of the majority with respect to interracial marriages. Food sold as food should, well, contain food, and not melamine.

I am arguing that the pendulum has swung too far. In California, it may be worse than where you live, but the laws about what I can do with my children and how much they trust me as a parent are particularly burdensome. To have to tell my kids, who are happily watching a movie together in the car "no, you have to come into the store with me to buy some milk not because I don't trust you but because there is a law that says I can't leave you in the car." is crazy.

The changes McDonald's has made to their menu in response to the laws are counter productive. I used to take the kids, and they'd get a hamburger, half a sliced apple with 1 Tbsp of caramel, and milk. Now the apples and caramel choice I used to have have been replaced with "Thou shalt have about 1/4 of an apple, no caramel, and fries." I don't want the fries, I'd prefer more apple actually, but the law doesn't allow it. The law really has no business dictating what people eat.

There's a huge concern about kids getting fat and spending too much time watching TV. Well, duh. With the laws about "mandatory reporting" and what happens if you let your kids play outside and goodness knows, they fall off the monkey bars and break an arm, you're looking at 6 weeks of CPC intervention, minimum. People don't let their kids play outside because they are scared of the government, and that is bad for society as a whole.

There are never unattended children at the park. When I think of all the hours I spent, younger than Peter, playing outside unattended it makes me want to weep. In terms of childhood obesity, the government is reaping what it has sewn, and I don't think outlawing sugar (proposed recently) is the correct next step.

--Beth

[songmonk.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings on this topic in general, but I did want to ask you regarding one specific point.

The topic came up with a friend (and a friend of a friend who is also my friend) who leaves her children in the car for a significantly longer time than returning a cart. But when I tried to look up California law just now, I found this:

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/safety-laws.php#Leaving-Children-or-Pets-Unattended-in-a-Car

Which doesn't sound unreasonable. Did did you read or hear something that claimed it was against the law to leave your child in the car to return a shopping cart or to buy some milk in the store? Or you're just talking about society pressures?

[beth_leonard]

There was a lady who left her kid in the car during the church rummage sale (which I headed up) last year. The police were present for another reason (hit-and-run crash) and arrested her too. That was last May, and I'm still fielding calls from her attorney and the CPA asking for witnesses. Two members from our parish got subpoenaed in the case. It was not excessively hot, in fact, it was threatening to rain. Some members of the parish say they'd never leave their kids in the car ever, period, others would.

Will she prevail in court? Who knows. But she still has to be dragged through the legal system.

--Beth

[songmonk.livejournal.com]

If they arrested and charged her, then they must have charged her with something. I wonder what the law they quoted was.

Also, it does seem really odd that they would pursue this case even if she did violate the law, because it wasn't an egregious offense. (Not like those cases where a person leaves a baby in the car who dies.)

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

That poor family. It must be hard on the kids too.

The link sounds reasonable to me too, although it's paraphrasing the law, not quoting. This may be an instance of overzealous interpretation of a reasonable law rather than a nanny-state law. In that case, I'd say your complaint is with the way the legal system encourages and allows police to arrest first and let the lawyers sort it out, rather than check to see if a law is actually being violated before they put people through hell.

[beth_leonard]

The lady in question was a bit on the weird side. But after seeing that not quite first hand, but second-hand, am I ever going to do the same, even when it makes sense so to do? I'll think twice for sure. Merely having the law, which can be interpreted, makes people act differently. And the sum of all those actions is a nation of obese kids.

--Beth

[beth_leonard]

My father-in-law also regularly calls the police on people who have left their kids in the car. I think it's wrong, not economically sound, and not sensitive to the needs of parents. If you can't let your toddler finish their nap while you buy something for 5-10 minutes, you just don't buy the thing. Not good for the economy. Parents know their kids better than the state, and if a parent knows that their kid never wakes up mid-nap, and wouldn't get out of the car even if they did, why is there a problem if they make the best choice for their family?

I know I make choices based on not what is best for the kids, but what other people will think or do. It's sad.

Other realms of examples include making internet accounts for kids at sites like Khan Academy. Government, please let me make some of my own choices! You don't always know best. Really. Even if you do, sometimes it's a good lesson to learn from mistakes.

--Beth

[beth_leonard]

The law apparently states one thing, but the DMV site something else. The law:

Prohibition Against Unattended Child in Vehicle

15620. (a) A parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for a child who is 6 years of age or younger may not leave that child inside a motor vehicle without being subject to the supervision of a person who is 12 years of age or older, under either of the following circumstances:

(1) Where there are conditions that present a significant risk to the child's health or safety.

(2) When the vehicle's engine is running or the vehicle's keys are in the ignition, or both.

The CA driver's handbook: (near the bottom of the page)

Unattended Children In Motor Vehicles

It is illegal to leave a child six years of age or younger unattended in a motor vehicle. Be aware if:

Weather conditions or other conditions present a significant risk to the child’s health or safety.
Example: Leaving a child in a closed vehicle on a very hot day.
The vehicle’s engine is running, keys are in the ignition, or both. Children may start or move the vehicle causing injuries and/or deaths to themselves or others.
EXCEPTION: The child may be left under the supervision of a person 12 years of age or older.

So the handbook makes it sound illegal to return a shopping cart, and I can tell you I've hand old ladies give me dirty looks when I was trying to return the cart with two kids under three and I left one snapped in in the car. The society we live in makes me feel like puking. I'm a good person. I don't like to be made to feel like I'm doing something wrong when I am doing something I know is right. If my friends and relatives didn't all live here, I'd move to another state.

--Beth
Edit: fix formatting

[feuervogel]

Print out the statute (with citation) on business cards and hand them to the busybodies, with a side of "Mind your own business."

[beth_leonard]

I had a long talk with a well-meaning lady from my church about this issue. She honestly believes that it is a significant safety risk to the child to leave the kid in the car unattended, because "Someone could just abduct the child. You never know when that could happen!"

Pointing out that stranger abductions are extremely rare doesn't matter to her, or that someone could snatch the kid out of my hands just as easily as out of the car. If someone, or a group of someones, is intent on abducting my kid there is no thing I could to do prevent it. Mostly I have to just trust that we live in a generally good world. Some people watch too much TV and believe that it is actually dangerous to have kids by themselves.

Sigh. I happen to disagree with that woman on quite a number of parenting things, and I absolutely can't stand her kid. He is like Eddie Haskel. I'm not going to make a law that says she must push her kids to spend an hour daily outside unsupervised. I happen to disagree with her choices, but I do respect her right to make them.

--Beth

[nemene.livejournal.com]

FI the car is locked they are safer in the car then in your hands.

[robszewczyk.livejournal.com]

I have been kinda following the rule of "Safety 3rd". It seems to work well when possible.

Maybe I'm idealistic, but it seems to me that the government is mainly responding to the safety-focused, fear-driven, idiots. It is hard to argue against safety, god knows I've tried. Government is not necessarily the problem here, it is the people.

I think when it comes to actual actions of nanny-state, it is difficult to draw a meaningful distinction between republicans and democrats; after all, the credit for TSA and Homeland Security squarely goes to the Bush Administration and Republican-controlled Congress.

[querldox.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the Free Range Kids blog (http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/)? Don't regularly follow it myself, but it's written by a woman who gained notoriety due to letting her 8? 11? somewhere in that range year old kid ride the New York City subway by himself.

Ironically, the current lead story on it is about 5th graders in Davidson, NC no longer being allowed to play without direct parental supervision on the town green after school. Ironically, because I grew up in Charlotte, the "big city" near Davidson, and from age 5 on regularly played outside by myself or with other kids, and from age 6 walked or rode my bike the half mile or so to school every day by myself.

[beth_leonard]

I've heard of the blog, but don't frequently read it because it makes me feel bad and sad and angry and powerless.

Another part of the kid problem is also that an ER visit is more expensive these days than it used to be. We're up to $1800+ for a broken bone uninsured, and it cost us $800+ for a little breathing difficulty *with insurance* that has an $800/month family premium. The costs of getting injured now are higher than they used to be, but I think that thought doesn't enter most parents minds as much as the perception that other people will think they're not doing the best thing for their children when they allow them opportunities which might potentially involve risk. Organized sports are likely more dangerous/costly from that perspective than a pickup game of kickball in the street, but the police don't get called to AYSO soccer games because of the potential for injury and danger.

--Beth