How do you define "nanny state"?

[Loeilad]

You don't define it - but the people who use the expression are in fact defining themselves.

[Loeilad]

they also tend to use the term "PC" in a derogatory sense - yet thy couldn't define that either.

[onthesoi]

5555 Yes.

[Peterw42]

2 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

 

 

I spent many years in the construction industry and retired comfortably from it.        I know what safety is all about and I know some follow it and some do not.    I worked for a boss who cared nothing about safety and it was up to  me to say I won't do it.      His goal was to simply  save money for the company.   He seriously angered me regarding his lack of concern about my safety.

 

I exchange emails with him today and harbor no ill feelings.   

 

 

Please, ALL  tell me what you consider a NANNY STATE.       I wanted a nanny state in the past when I dealt with my boss on my own and said F you, John,  we  have to have a  a  building shut down.   My life natters to me even if it costs the building owner more money.

 

 

Nanny State?  What is a nanny state?    Not examples but a definition from ones thoughts plaase

 

 

 

 

 

Op, you refer to safty and the construction industry. I used to run around fixing computers, and sometime end up at a construction site, The air-conditioned office, not the actual (dangerous)site. I recall a time were I wasnt allowed into the office because I didn't have whatever card was required for the site, steel capped boots, and hadn't done the safety induction etc. That is a little of what I refer to as Nanny State, rules gone crazy. 

[Loeilad]

cliche after cliche

 

"Nanny State, rules gone crazy. "

 

next it's   "PC gone mad"

[mania]

Quote

The term's been bandied about on  TV since I've been a member  but I've never really heard any kind  of definition for it.

 

I think many have given you various takes on what a Nanny State means to them

 

But as for the term being bandied about on TV....my impression is the folks using this term the most

are the ones that like to wobble down most roads drunk on scooters or in cars knowing they will likely

not be caught by any form of law enforcement. There are other things they also like about "less law enforcement"

but that is the gist of it

[mania]

4 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Yes, I realise that Thailand has some pretty draconian laws and censorship, But I never feel like I am living in a nanny state.

 

True & I felt the same way

But I also always knew it was just due to lack of enforcement, But.....

Once entangled in their  system (non-System) for any reason the Nanny States will look quite forgiving to most

[Loeilad]

Big government is yet another cliche and a fallacy.

 

all that entails is taking money from Social Services and civil rights and putting it into the police and armed forces in order to control the populace

[Gringogazzer]

I've spent some time in Hong Kong this year & the thing that "weirded me out" was dtaang daao (farang) busking.
A bloke just playing some music with a hat on the floor. It had become alien to see someone like me expressing or having civil liberty.
Nanny or draconian, rock or a hard place?

[Kwasaki]

From personal UK activities my opinion is some things are good like c.c. restrictions for young taking to the UK roads.

Many other road user things go too far and just revenue collection.

Was really gets me venting is when someone breaks into your house and you can end being prosecuted for not using the correct equal force.

My Oz friend thinks his country tops UK on PC and nanny stuff but there both up the top IMO.

[Peterw42]

At a certain point, a government cannot legislate ethics, morals, common sense, individual choices, and its not their job.

A Government that tries to, is saying to its citizens, you obviously cant be trusted to do the right thing so we are going to make a law against it.

A government can put laws in place to control a small minority, who are not capable of a socially acceptable individual action. The small minority will act with or without laws to govern them. A percentage of the population are Aholes and no amount of legislation will change that.

The social fabric is made up of the fact that the majority of people will act in a socially acceptable manor. We are capable of individual decisions that are for the better good of society. Again, governments cant legislate that.

 

A "Big" Government thats tries to control everything by legislation, is in fact undermining the social fabric, taking away the individuals responsibility to society. I no longer need to care if cocacola is good or bad for me or others, make an informed decision etc, the government has decided that on my behalf and has banned it or taxed it etc.

 

I want law and order in my society, but that law and order needs to come from the collective society, based on individual actions. Not the state deciding and enforcing on my behalf.

 

 

 

 

 

[YeahSiam]

On 12/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Try Australia:  in my opinion the government is unbearably overprotective and is always interfering with my personal choices, here in Thailand, I do what I want and no one bothers me, just the way I like it, my choice 555

 

On 12/4/2016 at 3:23 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Too many laws, too controlling, too much restriction on peoples lives.

 

Yes, Thailand leaves me alone, I don't feel restricted or controlled, not knowing the language is even better, I am someone just in the LOS.

 

If you can't read my definition of a nanny state, then I can't help you 555

 

Yeah all those benefits sound great until you witness the endless complaints we hear from expats about the F-word, dual pricing, not having any rights, being seen as little more than a walking wallet by both the people and the state, the absence of rule of law, denial of the right to work to support one's family etc, etc.

You won't hear that kind of shit in so-called "nanny states" yet so many people who've benefited from it back home now slag it off.

 

See what happens if you become ill and can't stump up enough for treatment in Thailand.

The "nanny state" in your home country will be waiting with open arms to save your ass

[Prbkk]

On 04/12/2016 at 1:55 PM, 4MyEgo said:

Try Australia:  in my opinion the government is unbearably overprotective and is always interfering with my personal choices, here in Thailand, I do what I want and no one bothers me, just the way I like it, my choice 555

 

But they DO 'bother' people: constraints on sale of alcohol, censorship in many forms, control of media, prohibitive import taxes and regulations, onerous requirements in respect of business operations and property ownership, thousands of other interferences in the pursuit of happiness. 

The freedoms cited by people eg driving, motorcycles are not real freedoms but more failures of reasonable public policy.

Thailand has far more constraints on individual freedoms than the UK, US, other comparable western countries

[i claudius]

 
Yeah all those benefits sound great until you witness the endless complaints we hear from expats about the F-word, dual pricing, not having any rights, being seen as little more than a walking wallet by both the people and the state, the absence of rule of law, denial of the right to work to support one's family etc, etc.
You won't hear that kind of shit in so-called "nanny states" yet so many people who've benefited from it back home now slag it off.
 
See what happens if you become ill and can't stump up enough for treatment in Thailand.
The "nanny state" in your home country will be waiting with open arms to save your ass

Yes your right,but that is after most of us have spent our life paying for it,nothing in life comes free

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[YeahSiam]

19 minutes ago, i claudius said:

Yes your right,but that is after most of us have spent our life paying for it,nothing in life comes free

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk
 

 

You're wrong there.

Lots of us got good, solid high school educations at the "nanny state's" expense.

Lots of us got to go to university at the "nanny state's" expense.

Some people haven't paid a penny for it yet they still benefit from what it offers.

Many of those who do pay still get back more from the system than they pay in.

 

[KMartinHandyman]

Someplace that legislates incumbrance on the masses to protect a few fools from hurting themselves.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Someplace that legislates incumbrance on the masses to protect a few fools from hurting themselves.

 

Or more often than not, to protect the masses from being hurt by a few fools... 

[Loeilad]

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

At a certain point, a government cannot legislate ethics, morals, common sense, individual choices, and its not their job.

A Government that tries to, is saying to its citizens, you obviously cant be trusted to do the right thing so we are going to make a law against it.

A government can put laws in place to control a small minority, who are not capable of a socially acceptable individual action. The small minority will act with or without laws to govern them. A percentage of the population are Aholes and no amount of legislation will change that.

The social fabric is made up of the fact that the majority of people will act in a socially acceptable manor. We are capable of individual decisions that are for the better good of society. Again, governments cant legislate that.

 

A "Big" Government thats tries to control everything by legislation, is in fact undermining the social fabric, taking away the individuals responsibility to society. I no longer need to care if cocacola is good or bad for me or others, make an informed decision etc, the government has decided that on my behalf and has banned it or taxed it etc.

 

I want law and order in my society, but that law and order needs to come from the collective society, based on individual actions. Not the state deciding and enforcing on my behalf.

 

 

 

 

 

..and you think it's OK to do all that there - that's why the signs are needed.

[4MyEgo]

5 hours ago, YeahSiam said:

 

 

Yeah all those benefits sound great until you witness the endless complaints we hear from expats about the F-word, dual pricing, not having any rights, being seen as little more than a walking wallet by both the people and the state, the absence of rule of law, denial of the right to work to support one's family etc, etc.

You won't hear that kind of shit in so-called "nanny states" yet so many people who've benefited from it back home now slag it off.

 

See what happens if you become ill and can't stump up enough for treatment in Thailand.

The "nanny state" in your home country will be waiting with open arms to save your ass

 

The word Farang, Falang, however one pronounces it, doesn't bother me, its a word, you remember sticks and stones ?

 

I can understand why we can't work her, people in Thailand look after their own, and that's the way it should be in my opinion, not like the piss weak politicians back in Oz that just keep giving hand outs to non Australians, no wonder the can't afford to pay us expats the pension, .i.e. unless we return 2 years prior to the old age pension age to prove we are living there, have retained our residency and bullshit to them that we intend to stay after we get the pension, yeh right !

 

I never left Australia with empty pockets, I worked my C... off for 40 years to be able to support myself, and if you think your entitled to Medicare once you are out of the country for more than 183 days, you need your head read, that is unless you have retained your residency and pay tax back in Australia.

 

Thailand might be a nanny state to you, but not too me, its a free country in my eyes, for me, maybe not for the locals, but this is about me.

[4MyEgo]

7 hours ago, Prbkk said:

 

But they DO 'bother' people: constraints on sale of alcohol, censorship in many forms, control of media, prohibitive import taxes and regulations, onerous requirements in respect of business operations and property ownership, thousands of other interferences in the pursuit of happiness. 

The freedoms cited by people eg driving, motorcycles are not real freedoms but more failures of reasonable public policy.

Thailand has far more constraints on individual freedoms than the UK, US, other comparable western countries

 

Sure they have their laws, rules and regulations, suffice to say I can live with it and I am happy, don't need to work, can start a business to make money, but why on earth would I even contemplate that, I am here for the "freedom" that I am experiencing, sure things are upside down a bit, and it is different, but that's the experience of living in another country, and if I wasn't truly happy living here, I could just up and go back to a living hell IMO, or somewhere different again, suffice to say, its all about weighing things up, like in a relationship, if things aren't going they way you want them to be, and dogs don't change their spots, then time to get out and move on.

 

All I am saying in my opinion, and for my circumstances, Thailand Vs Australia, well Thailand wins hands down, Australia has nothing but control and money, Thailand has no money and a different control. 

[NoshowJones]

On 12/4/2016 at 10:01 AM, watcharacters said:

 

 

You have not  really defined what you consider a nanny state but so be it.

 

 

Do you feel Thailand lets you do what you want?    REally?

 

 

I am  curious about a nanny state definition.

Do you feel Thailand lets you do what you want?    REally?

Probably, as long as you are rich, and have plenty of brown envelopes.

 

[brling]

On 12/4/2016 at 0:55 PM, Flanno said:

What about a country which enforces a no gambling policy to the extreme while it allows criminals, both Thai and Farang, to carry on regardless of laws. Playing a card game called Bridge in which the cops raid and arrest participants. Is that a nanny state?

 

 Yup, that is nanny state Thailand, and dont forget press censorship. 

[rwdrwdrwd]

On 04/12/2016 at 10:06 AM, i claudius said:

 

You are so right , and to be honest the PC nonsense has gone far to far , i read that now its classed as a hate crime if you say anything bad about "ginger haired people"  what next people with big ears ?

I thought that the BBC had lost the plot ,making nearly half their progs with an interracial couple in it ,but when they but black and middle eastern people in the crowd scenes in Britain in the middle ages in an episode of Dr Who , i cringed , and dont get me started on "the artful dodger" being black in the last Dickens series .

 

A black artful dodger isn't surprising or odd at all given that there were quite a few black people in London by the late 18th century. Some academics have stated between 1 and 3% of all Londoners were black around that time.

[YeahSiam]

7 hours ago, rwdrwdrwd said:

 

A black artful dodger isn't surprising or odd at all given that there were quite a few black people in London by the late 18th century. Some academics have stated between 1 and 3% of all Londoners were black around that time.

 

Amazing how little some Brits know about their own history.

Hundreds of black servicemen and women fought and died for Britain in World War 2.

We do have a penchant for stripping out the parts of history that don't sit well with us.

[YeahSiam]

16 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

The word Farang, Falang, however one pronounces it, doesn't bother me, its a word, you remember sticks and stones ?

 

I can understand why we can't work her, people in Thailand look after their own, and that's the way it should be in my opinion, not like the piss weak politicians back in Oz that just keep giving hand outs to non Australians, no wonder the can't afford to pay us expats the pension, .i.e. unless we return 2 years prior to the old age pension age to prove we are living there, have retained our residency and bullshit to them that we intend to stay after we get the pension, yeh right !

 

I never left Australia with empty pockets, I worked my C... off for 40 years to be able to support myself, and if you think your entitled to Medicare once you are out of the country for more than 183 days, you need your head read, that is unless you have retained your residency and pay tax back in Australia.

 

Thailand might be a nanny state to you, but not too me, its a free country in my eyes, for me, maybe not for the locals, but this is about me.

 

Ditto but I don't feel the need or the inclination to take a big, fat dump on a "nanny state" that gave me the opportunities (education, healthcare, rule of law) to achieve those goals.

[4MyEgo]

38 minutes ago, YeahSiam said:

 

Ditto but I don't feel the need or the inclination to take a big, fat dump on a "nanny state" that gave me the opportunities (education, healthcare, rule of law) to achieve those goals.

 

I feel the need, especially just because I wish to retire abroad, i.e. not a chance in hell of retiring in "the so called lucky country" because of the cost of living and real estate prices/rent.

 

You see when you work 40 + years in "the lucky country" you should have the full support of the government to retire wherever you please, and should have access to Medicare and of course be provided the opportunity to pay the levy surcharge annually (tax), be able to vote, and of course be able to take your pension when you reach the retirement age of 65, even though you exited the country before the retirement age, i.e. not having to return 2 years prior to obtain it, these are all penalties, what Australia is saying is, if you don't want to live her anymore, then F... O.. and these are the penalties that we are applying to you, but if you leave your money here, we won't tax you, only 10% on the interest on any bank term deposits you have here in Australia, and shares here, we won't tax you if the shares are fully franked (tax paid) and we won't slug you any capital gains tax on any increases on your shares when you sell them, but if you have property here we will take a third of the rent every year and we will take all of the capital gains on the sale from the date you left.

 

But wait there's more, if you come in by boat, or are an immigrant and have 5 kids and are unemployed (working taxis other cash jobs) we will throw money at you and your kids, Family A & B benefits, $11,000 per annum per child, or if your a single mum, we will support you, I could go on, but what's the point, I couldn't dump on Australia all year every year, politicians buying expensive wines, having expensive lunches, 1st class flights overseas, expensive hotels, dogs being chauffeur driven, but if you have paid your taxes for all those years and you want to retire in a similar place, were the cost of living is at least half and you can drive on the same side of the road, then F... Off mate, we don't need you anymore, but your money here is welcome, now don't tell me that, that's not hypocritical and down right unfair.

 

If you think I am not entitled to have a dump on "the lucky country", I will say I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are, fair suck of the sav as the saying goes !

[i claudius]

22 hours ago, YeahSiam said:

 

You're wrong there.

Lots of us got good, solid high school educations at the "nanny state's" expense.

Lots of us got to go to university at the "nanny state's" expense.

Some people haven't paid a penny for it yet they still benefit from what it offers.

Many of those who do pay still get back more from the system than they pay in.

 

Yes ,but in those days it wasnt a "nanny state" was it , we were free to do and say as we liked(within reason) , we are talking about now and the nanny state , where you pay a fortune to go to university

[i claudius]

1 hour ago, YeahSiam said:

 

Amazing how little some Brits know about their own history.

Hundreds of black servicemen and women fought and died for Britain in World War 2.

We do have a penchant for stripping out the parts of history that don't sit well with us.

Quite correct , but they did not come from Britain on the whole , please do not think i am being racist , just stating facts , when i was about 8 back in the 50s i saw my first black person , i did not see any others until i went to live in London in the mid 60's . and most of those were in Brixton .

[Mexlark]

People who moan about the nanny state are usually taking a dig at something a socialist government once thought was a good idea about 4 decades ago. Well, some looney stuff certainly hit the blanket in that era, but the lunacy continues completely unabated in whatever dumbass party of know-it-alls is currently in power. And we haven't had anything remotely like a real socialist government in ..... 40 years. Margaret Thatcher was amongst those people who conveniently hijacked the phrase. It probably never occurred to her that her whole demeanour was very nannyish. Indeed she could easily have recruited for the job of PM straight from the domestics section of the classified ads of The Lady. Her breed was nannyism was/is always knowing  where ordinary citizens have got it 'wrong' and continually chastising and punishing them for it in no uncertain terms. Classic nanny in my opinion, and the likes of Boris Johnson and Teresa May continue to keep the tradition very much alive. The idea being that if you keep smacking people down, sooner or later they'll learn to like being robots in an Amazon depot. (Deliberate dig at the Daily Mail there. They like to expose the situation at Amazon, and then conveniently forget their very heavy role in getting to that parlous state.) So which nannyism are we talking about here -  the ancient socialist welfare state, or the contemporary free market welfare-for-the-rich state.

[YeahSiam]

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

Quite correct , but they did not come from Britain on the whole , please do not think i am being racist , just stating facts , when i was about 8 back in the 50s i saw my first black person , i did not see any others until i went to live in London in the mid 60's . and most of those were in Brixton .

 

So bloody what if they didn't come from Britain?