Nanny State

[1BADDAT]

A lot of people seem to have come to Thailand to move away from their nanny states. The definition of nanny state differs depending on what country we are talking about, but it has made me think about about what personal freedom is allowed in Thailand compared to other places. I will point out a few of the differences that come to mind, but I am sure there are many more.

Freedom of speech: I think Thailand is much stricter in this regard. Especially when you consider saying something negative about a certain individual could land you in prison.

Driving: Thailand is way more lenient on enforcing traffic rules, but you are much more likely to get pulled over as a foreigner for doing nothing wrong.

Police presence: There are far more police / military here than what I see back home. The military presence is a little concerning for me since who knows what they will decide tomorrow.

Alcohol: I find it really bizarre that you can not buy alcohol during certain times in the afternoon. Although it normally doesn't cause an issue with me, it can be quite irritating when you try and pick up a bottle of wine on the way to a bbq in the afternoon. Even the backwards places in the US let you buy alcohol during normal times Monday-Saturday.

Drugs: The US and other countries are much more open to legalization and decriminalization. Thailand has a much more strict and antiquated system. That being said, I think they still have a huge problem, even with supposed harsh penalties.

Building permits: Not really sure, but I think Thailand has got to be much more lenient.

Misc: In the US you cant park a car overnight on some streets, you cant water the lawn on certain days, Neighborhoods have their own set of rules a lot of time. Clearly Thailand offers much more freedom in this respect. As well as the fact that if you do break a minor law here, it is a lot cheaper and easier to resolve.

Guns: In the US you can pretty much legally get whatever firearm you want as long as you aren't a criminal. And if you are a criminal it is probably just as easy. Not sure what the rules are here but i hear a lot of claims that everyone here have guns.

[manfredtillmann]

perhaps you should start your post with defining 'nanny state'. is this not a term used for a state/government their citizens feel over - regulated by?

when all adventure, risk, excitement has been taken out of life in order to 'protect' citizens from harm?

many of your listed examples have nothing to do with being 'nannied'.

you appear to be from the usa, have you ever lived somewhere else other than in T?

[Morakot]

[1BADDAT]

perhaps you should start your post with defining 'nanny state'. is this not a term used for a state/government their citizens feel over - regulated by?

when all adventure, risk, excitement has been taken out of life in order to 'protect' citizens from harm?

many of your listed examples have nothing to do with being 'nannied'.

you appear to be from the usa, have you ever lived somewhere else other than in T?

Like I mentioned, the definition varies widely depending on what country you are talking about. My take is that it relates to personal freedom, which is what I based my list on.

What does my list have to do with where I have lived? I would like input from people from different countries to offer their opinions since I commonly see people use this term. I would like to know what they think their home countries restrict them in doing to motivate them to live here.

[dick dasterdly]

I 'get' what the OP is saying.

Most of us didn't care much for the 'nanny state' back home, whilst being horrified at the lack of grounding etc. here when it comes to electricity.

We all have our own line as to when 'nanny state' turns into downright dangerous.

Edited April 22, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[manfredtillmann]

perhaps you should start your post with defining 'nanny state'. is this not a term used for a state/government their citizens feel over - regulated by?

when all adventure, risk, excitement has been taken out of life in order to 'protect' citizens from harm?

many of your listed examples have nothing to do with being 'nannied'.

you appear to be from the usa, have you ever lived somewhere else other than in T?

Like I mentioned, the definition varies widely depending on what country you are talking about. My take is that it relates to personal freedom, which is what I based my list on.

What does my list have to do with where I have lived? I would like input from people from different countries to offer their opinions since I commonly see people use this term. I would like to know what they think their home countries restrict them in doing to motivate them to live here.

it still comes down to definition. personal freedom - what is that, please?

the right to wear an assault rifle while shopping at wallmart or the right to pray to your own god in the privacy of your home. this is what 'where you live' pertains to.

if you want to live a life without restrictions to your personal freedom - you have to do that as a hermit on some isolated island.

[sipi]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

[stoneyboy]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

The last line made me chuckle.

[sipi]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

The last line made me chuckle.

Strangely enough, after taking them to the dump in Australia I then find myself in Thailand with my son in an unrestrained seat.

[1BADDAT]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

This is a perfect example of how lobbyists get people to pass ridiculous laws. The same law applies in the US as well. Oddly enough you can buy used motorbike helmets no problem.

[swissie]

Farangs, down to their last 30'000 Bht and needing (free) medical attention, usually find nothing wrong with the "nanny-state" back home.

Cheers.

[bangkokjulia]

Or perhaps not the nanny state, but the politically correct state. In Australia, more and more people who are committing heinous crimes are using the "I was ice affected your Honour," defence with many successful findings of not guilty. Criminals have more rights than their innocent victims.

[1BADDAT]

So many complain about "nanny states", but I open a thread and they are silent...ok

[dick dasterdly]

So many complain about "nanny states", but I open a thread and they are silent...ok

I've already commented and didn't come here to get away from a 'nanny state', but its an interesting question even though we all draw our own line when it comes to freedom vs protection (things that should be properly controlled vs things that shouldn't).

The freedom here is hard to define, but its probably down to being less concerned about rules/laws/being told exactly what to do by the authorities? Obviously this freedom has its 'downsides' too.

The litigious culture can be blamed for a lot of the unnecessary rules and regs IMO - governmental depts need to protect themselves from law suits. These rules and regs are Important when it comes to working conditions and the like, but not so important when it comes to other things that only require common sense.

[1BADDAT]

So many complain about "nanny states", but I open a thread and they are silent...ok

I've already commented and didn't come here to get away from a 'nanny state', but its an interesting question even though we all draw our own line when it comes to freedom vs protection (things that should be properly controlled vs things that shouldn't).

The freedom here is hard to define, but its probably down to being less concerned about rules/laws/being told exactly what to do by the authorities? Obviously this freedom has its 'downsides' too.

The litigious culture can be blamed for a lot of the unnecessary rules and regs IMO - governmental depts need to protect themselves from law suits. These rules and regs are Important when it comes to working conditions and the like, but not so important when it comes to other things that only require common sense.

definitely have to agree with you on most of your points. I think the nanny state comments generally come when someone says something regarding enforcing rules here or adding new laws. They then respond with something like "if I wanted rules and regulations I would go back to my nanny state".

I also didn't come here to escape a nanny state. I like some things about back home and some things about here better. We share a similar point of view.

[dick dasterdly]

So many complain about "nanny states", but I open a thread and they are silent...ok

I've already commented and didn't come here to get away from a 'nanny state', but its an interesting question even though we all draw our own line when it comes to freedom vs protection (things that should be properly controlled vs things that shouldn't).

The freedom here is hard to define, but its probably down to being less concerned about rules/laws/being told exactly what to do by the authorities? Obviously this freedom has its 'downsides' too.

The litigious culture can be blamed for a lot of the unnecessary rules and regs IMO - governmental depts need to protect themselves from law suits. These rules and regs are Important when it comes to working conditions and the like, but not so important when it comes to other things that only require common sense.

definitely have to agree with you on most of your points. I think the nanny state comments generally come when someone says something regarding enforcing rules here or adding new laws. They then respond with something like "if I wanted rules and regulations I would go back to my nanny state".

I also didn't come here to escape a nanny state. I like some things about back home and some things about here better. We share a similar point of view.

Which is why you'd think some posters would be here pointing out the 'nanny state' rules that annoyed them - but I think its more a general feeling of everything being over-regulated and enforced, whereas the opposite applies here.

[Gonsalviz]

I left my nanny state so long ago I forgot what it was like but I read the news and see the new stuff they come up with and I know why I left. Nobody here really pays attention to laws here anyway.

[dick dasterdly]

There's a thread in Thailand News which is a v good example of nanny state vs freedom and non-regulation.

Something along the lines of 'Banana boat death - Ubon relatives seeking compensation'.

[canthai55]

Or perhaps not the nanny state, but the politically correct state. In Australia, more and more people who are committing heinous crimes are using the "I was ice affected your Honour," defence with many successful findings of not guilty. Criminals have more rights than their innocent victims.

You obviously have never done time.

[giddyup]

Or perhaps not the nanny state, but the politically correct state. In Australia, more and more people who are committing heinous crimes are using the "I was ice affected your Honour," defence with many successful findings of not guilty. Criminals have more rights than their innocent victims.

You obviously have never done time.

Depends on where you do it. If you are mass murderer Breivik you can kill 77 people, complain about your conditions in jail as inhumane (and win the case), even though you have the use of three spacious cells to exercise, watch TV, cook etc. From what I've heard from warders and what I've read, Australia isn't so bad either. Thailand might be a bit rougher. Anyway, do the crime, do the time.

Edited April 24, 2016 by giddyup

[melvinmelvin]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

This is a perfect example of how lobbyists get people to pass ridiculous laws. The same law applies in the US as well. Oddly enough you can buy used motorbike helmets no problem.

You mean there is federal legislation in the US disallowing this throughout the US of A? Well, I hope you are mistaking.

[1BADDAT]

In Australia I tried to give our certified car baby seats to a certified charity for some dear mum to use for her children.

Couldn't do, not allowed by law: so they went to the dump instead.

I should have taken them to Thailand.

This is a perfect example of how lobbyists get people to pass ridiculous laws. The same law applies in the US as well. Oddly enough you can buy used motorbike helmets no problem.

You mean there is federal legislation in the US disallowing this throughout the US of A? Well, I hope you are mistaking.

yes I was mistaken. The truth is it is not illegal. But like Sipi mentioned charities will not accept them because of liability issues. The lobbyists have been pushing the limits of what is required by law. Now in the US each state has individual rules which keep getting stricter year by year.

[BritManToo]

Nanny state - a place that makes rules and regulations for your own good because you're irresponsible with you life and welfare.

Thailand - a place that makes rules and regulations to extract the maximum amount of cash from you, and doesn't give a damn if you harm or kill yourself.

The two are not the same.

[bannork]

Nanny state - a place that makes rules and regulations for your own good because you're irresponsible with you life and welfare.

Thailand - a place that makes rules and regulations to extract the maximum amount of cash from you, and doesn't give a damn if you harm or kill yourself.

The two are not the same.

I'm from the Nanny State called UK, the good points are the NHS and social security but the bad points are the endless laws - I was evicted from an apartment by the Health and Safety officials because there wasn't 25% natural sunlight coming through my basement windows, even though I was happy there.. Whilst working I took a low paying second job to make more money- 25% income tax. In my view the UK is just too small with far too many people and laws.

Thailand- we could build our house any way we liked, as for cash extracted? about 5% income tax and 10 pounds a month for health insurance.

[eldragon]

Everyone loves the personal freedom of Thailand until there's a problem. Then it's all "cops are corrupt", "damn motorcycles on the sidewalk", etc.