You know, the term “nanny law” has a lot of negative connotations associated with it. And personally, I can see why. Obviously this little nickname was created in response to the government overstepping its bounds and acting as a a metaphorical nanny to a bunch of kids that have graduated high school at this point. Sorry government, this is not an episode of Super Nanny and I think it’s time you left…
However, while in the nanny world there are those mean and crotchety old British nannies that won’t even let you have an M&M, there are also the cool nannies that just graduated from college and can play the electric guitar while also making pancakes FULL of M&Ms. So does that mean that there are two sides to every nanny state as well? Could the government actually be passing laws that are as useful and potentially as delicious and heartwarming as M&M pancakes?
Tell me this looks disgusting and I will personally knock some sense into you.
Well, okay, so laws aren’t exactly tasty, and bills aren’t exactly all warm and fuzzy, but they can indeed be helpful and altogether necessary! Do you guys remember that time when you didn’t have to wear seat belts and your parents let you jump on a trampoline in the back seat of your minivan? Yeah, me either. But there was a time when there were no laws regarding seat belts. And let me tell you. It was ugly.
1961 was the first year that any state required cars to be outfitted with seat belts, with Wisconsin taking the lead. And in 1984, New York state mandated the use of seat belts.
A lot of people probably got pretty heated about this matter, you know, since it encroached on their personal freedoms and what not. If I want to have a freaking dance party in my car without seat belts, I WILL.
Now, you can still have dance parties in your car, but you just have to edit your dance moves a little. Save your splits and hand-stands for the actual dance floor.
Changing one’s lifestyle is often very… difficult. I’m sure if I had been driving or even riding in cars at this time, the use of a seat belt would have ticked me off. But, with such a change, millions of lives have been saved since.
No shame.
It’s easy to get all high and mighty with our ‘MERICA attitude about personal freedoms, but let the seat belt laws act as a reminder that the government doesn’t want to hurt us, they want to help us. Maybe even make us a pancake.
So y’all, what do you think? Are there any other examples of successful and helpful “nanny laws” that you can think of? Are government-imposed lifestyle changes always doomed to fail, or do you think there is hope for the future of the nanny law?
I dunno, I’m still not a nanny-law advocate. I see your point with the seat belts, but there are certain lines that I just don’t believe the government should cross. But eh, opinions, opinions. I’ve enjoyed your blog, Sabrina – it was very informative and it put a nice comical spin on a serious issue. Great job! 🙂
I’ve never heard of “nanny laws”. Interesting! Love the picture with the kid in the seat belt. YOLO!!
Once I saw the pancakes on these blog I was sold and Im going to think about those for the rest of the day so thank you!! Great points and great blog!!
Steven, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy! Since I often support so called ‘nanny laws’ I’m glad you brought the benefits. I think a lot of disagreement stems from people simply not wanting to change their behavior out of stubbornness.
I agree that there are just some laws where the government is -GASP- actually looking out for the health and life of its citizens. It’s been proven time and time again that seatbelts DO save lives. They can be annoying and even I feel a little rebellious unbuckling a few minutes early, but those 3 seconds it takes to put them on could change your life. I’ve personally been in a car accident, and if I hadn’t been wearing my belt, I would have died. Just take it from people who know what they’re talking about. Some of these laws weren’t made just for shits and giggles.
These laws are always created for a reason, and it’s the government’s job to keep the health and well being of its people in mind (John Locke holla). Although we might not like it, it’s there for a reason, and I think for some laws, it can greatly benefit the citizens. BUT we’re stubborn, people don’t like to change, and that frustrates me a lot. It’s a culture that needs to be changed, because I think these nanny laws, although sometimes lame, can have a great benefit to us (just like how our parents might tick us off about something, but we’ll realize that what they do is quite helpful!)
Obviously the nanny laws aren’t driving you crazy enough to eat that stack of pancakes. I have agree with you that those look absolutely disgusting.
Honestly, I believe that many nanny laws are introduced with our best interests at heart – I don’t hate the government enought to fully believe that they would introduce a law without a care to our wellbeing. However, I do believe that some nanny laws are exhibitions of the government overstepping its boundaries, like a parent trying to scold a twenty-five year old. The seat belt law is a good representation of when they’re acceptable. Yet just as with many things in life, I believe we should have nanny laws – but only in moderation.
I think nanny laws are definitely a good thing, depending on the issue of course. Like you said, mandating the usage of seat belts was a very good nanny law. To be honest, I really don’t have a huge problem with any sort of nanny laws. People always go crazy and say how they are violating our constitutional rights. And yea, sometimes that may be the case, but most of the time the government is just looking out for the good of the people. So if I have to give up my xL diet coke, then so be it.
***every week (that we posted CI blogs)
The thing is, seatbelt laws are identical in principle to the other laws you’ve covered this semester. If you take the concept to its ultimate conclusion, the government could strictly regiment your life in the name of safety. That’s why I can’t possibly support even something as evidently sensible as a seatbelt law. It’s all about legal precedent and that slippery, slippery slope. It might take you anywhere.
P.S. Your Nanny Law blog was interesting and entertaining every week, IMO.
V. impressive.
I think that any “public health”/”public safety” law will have SOME positive aspect about it, as that is their purpose. In my opinion, the consideration lies with a balancing act between security and liberty (as usual).
The seatbelt law example is a very good point you brought up! It’s something we don’t even think about anymore, really… could the nanny laws that are being so fiercely debated turn into something like that ten years in the future? Possibly…