real life

Are we living in a nanny state or do we need to protect vulnerable people from stupid ones?

Sometimes, the news is just too awful to watch. Actually, most of the time. There have been some shocking and senseless tragedies lately, many have been accidents and have resulted in the death or injury of children. Miranda Divine wrote a column recently questioning the reflexive tendency for everyone to call on governments to DO SOMETHING and legislate around these accidents to try and prevent them.

It’s an interesting argument and one that ranks up there with ‘political correctness’ in terms of issues that people like to get cranky about. Are we becoming a nanny state? Are we constantly looking to governments to save us from….everything? Our own stupidity?

In her column, Miranda writes….

Here’s another triumph of the NSW Government: tough new legislation against pool owners. Under proposed changes to the Swimming Pools Act of 1992, council officers will have the right to invade private property and slap the state’s 300,000 pool owners with fines of $5500 apiece if they do not lock up their pools more tightly.

This latest attack by the nanny state on the humble property owner is a kneejerk reaction to a spate of child drownings last summer. No matter that almost all child drownings in backyard pools are the result of inadequate adult supervision, it’s the fences that are the focus of government energies. It’s just too hard to tell parents the bleeding obvious, which is that if their children are near a large body of water, fence or no fence, then there is no alternative but to watch them like a hawk; and it’s not a task that can be outsourced or shared. Children will always find ways of getting around fences and no barrier is a substitute for human vigilance.

But every time there is a terrible accident involving a child, there are calls for fences around dams, wharves and rivers, safety barriers at train stations or draconian new laws, no matter how impractical or futile. Whether it is a toddler falling to his death out of an open third-floor window, as happened this week in Kogarah, or a pram rolling off a train platform into the path of a train, as happened in Melbourne last week, with the six-month-old baby escaping injury, or two babies drowning in Adelaide in two separate incidents after their prams rolled down riverbanks, there are calls on authorities to “do something”.

It is part of a cultural paradigm in which any tragedy that befalls us is not just the result of bad luck or carelessness or simple human error but is the fault of inadequate regulation. There is this fantasy that with enough government intervention we can create a safety utopia.

Of course, many lives have been saved and injuries prevented by good laws – the original Swimming Pool Act requiring pools be fenced was one and compulsory seatbelts and random breath tests were two more. It may have been safety standards for prams that saved a life on that Melbourne train platform last week.

But flushed with success, the nanny staters went too far, and governments became hooked on the idea that they could fix the world with the stroke of a pen and win plaudits into the bargain.

The phrase nanny state is a cliche but that is because government intrusion in our lives is so pervasive we barely protest. From the ugly, low-carbon, high-mercury light bulbs we have to use, to the time at which we are allowed to water our gardens, we are like frogs in boiling water, unaware of our predicament.

The worst thing about nanny statism is that even in the most resourceful person it induces a state of learned helplessness and complacency, in which, for instance, a mother no longer keeps alert to dangers in her child’s environment because she thinks ”they” will do it for her. The problem is that human stupidity is infinite and ”they” aren’t on the railway platform with you at the moment you turn the pram around so its wheels point towards the tracks and then you take your hands off the pram handles to hitch up your trousers.

Eventually, nanny statism removes the imperative of common sense, just as satellite navigation devices in cars give you a partial lobotomy, since you never bother registering where, in a navigational sense, you are going any more, as the machine does all the work.

Lulling people into a false sense of security potentially endangers more lives as parents and carers lose the commonsense skills needed to monitor and identify potential dangers. The result is behaviour that can only be described as stupid, even from those who probably are not.

Perhaps the mass decline of common sense is the inevitable result of what Susan Greenfield, a British neuroscientist, says is the altered brain architecture of a couple of generations of people reared on technology rather than real-life experience.

If common sense is the accumulation of millions of real world experiences and the amalgamated sensory input from our environment, then no wonder people habituated to a two-dimensional virtual world without physical consequences seem increasingly to be so clueless.

[you can read her column in full here]

I think Miranda makes some interesting points. I do. Individuals DO have to take greater responsibility. It’s no use being an idiot and then blaming the government.

However I will make two points. The first is that governments DO have to protect vulnerable people from stupid people. This is why we have new legislation against smoking in a car with children in it. Because SOME PARENTS ARE THAT DUMB OR THAT NEGLIGENT.

And that’s why legislation about pool fences and seatbelts and random breath testing is, I believe, a good thing. Also, by legislating about something, it can begin to both increase awareness and change public perceptions about things. Like smoking in confined spaces. There is a much greater understanding about the dangers of passive smoking due to legislation on the issue.

Here’s the thing: there are many many stupid and selfish people out there from whom other people must be protected. And sometimes, stupid people must also be protected from themselves….

What do you think? Do we need these kinds of laws or are we becoming a nanny state (whatever that means).

[thanks Mackenzie]

Tags: