Monday, September 08, 2008

Das Uber Nanny State

Liberals and leftists, to simplify, are not only cowardly, but insist their cowardice upon others. Why do I say this? Because they have not the appetite for risk. And if they have not the appetite to take a chance, then therefore neither should you, for by comparison then they would look all wimpy, and, well, liberal.

The reason I say this is because it seems liberals are against anything risky, and therefore anything fun. For fun is a direct function of risk.

For example smoking a cigar. Smoking a cigar is fun, but there is a risk (although minute) that you will contract cancer and die.

Fireworks, those are fun. Hell of a lot of fun. But one could blow up in your face and kill you, so you better stick with the "liberal's firework;" the sparkler.

Sports cars, ahhhh, lots of fun. But they go fast and you might crash into something. Better get a Prius.

Eating peanuts is fun too. But there's a 1 in a billion chance some kid some where might catch wind of your peanut odor and croak and die. So we ban peanuts from schools.

Everywhere, everything that brings us the slightest bit of joy or happiness, even if it isn't a vice, is under attack from those who want to rule over us in a totalitarian manner under the false guise of "being concerned for our safety."

Thus I was glad to see the odds of death published by The Economist by various accidents so as to see just how paranoid over-protective-anti-fun-fascist-nanny-state-leftists were.



The most common accident is poison, which would in my estimation warrant an overly protective mother to call poison control should her little children eat a mushroom.
But look at what almost every community organizer goes after like a pit bull to ban and wears a badge of honor should they manage to ban it;

Fireworks.

1 in 1.9 million chance of you getting killed by a firework. That meant if we all played with fire works and every American handled them and played with them dangerously every year only 150 of us would die.

You are even more likely to get killed by your PJ's catching afire at night than by getting killed by a firecracker. You are 20 times more likely to get killed by lightning than by a firework.

Of course, it doesn't matter what the chances are, there's still a chance. And therefore, still an excuse for the nazi's to tell you what you can and cannot do.

19 comments:

Wulf said...

But you could blow off your thumb!

The left simply recognizes that it is necessary to put their laws on our bodies. Didn't you know?

John said...

What if it's 1.9M to 1 BECAUSE they are protecting us? I say you owe the socialists and nanny-staters an apology. If it weren't for them, I'll bet hundreds--nay, THOUSANDS--would be injured or killed each and every day--nay, HOUR--as a result of unnecessary harm from explosive and incendiary devices. You ingrate.

Ed Kohler said...

People definitely have a hard time getting worked up about the mundane, such as car accidents. However, the biggest money waster has to be the reaction to the odds of dying from a terrorist attack.

Captain Capitalism said...

Touche, Mr. Kohler, Touche.

Ryan Fuller said...

Captain, this has been bothering me for a while, and it's something of a pet peeve of mine, but would you please stop calling those leftist busybodies "liberals"? Liberalism is a centuries old tradition of freedom and smaller government, with the implicit assumption that people are grown-ups and ought to be left alone. Everywhere in the world except the modern United States (including the historical United States; I might add the Founding Fathers were certainly liberals) the term "liberal" means something more or less akin to "libertarian".

The left has hijacked the term to apply to their idiotic nanny-state vision of entitlements and government controls, obscuring the actual meaning of liberalism, and you're helping them do it. "Leftists", "socialists", or "weenies" are all perfectly suitable terms for them. There's no need to throw mud on a great tradition of political and philosophical thought by co-opting their terminology.

You know how in 1984, the government tried to get rid of concepts they didn't like by getting rid of the words for it? Using "liberal" to apply to leftists, you're not only blurring an important concept, you're throwing these leftist weenies in the same camp as the Founding Fathers, who often spoke high praise of liberalism.

Neo Conservative said...

*
hey... I've got one you can calculate. here's the clue...

"as one british writer put it... 'more people have been strangled by their own pants.'"

*

Anonymous said...

OMG!!!! Stop the presses Captain.Some leftie just figured out(with a grant of your money)that being born increases your chances of dying by 100%!!! From where do they get such wisdom??

The Phantom said...

People are stupid, Captain. They must be controlled.

Besides, if you are a Guardian Of The People(TM), you have to be seen Doing Something(TM). Its easier to ban fireworks than to do something -useful-. Liberals are lazy as well as cowardly, they do what's easy, not what's required. Gun control is easy, jailing criminals isn't.

Truthfully, there's not much scope for useful, life improving things being done by government. Its a very blunt instrument, good for wars , road building and raising money from unwilling citizens. Beyond that, private enterprise works much more smoothly.

Lefties are jealous, too.

Yaron said...

I'm pretty sure john didn't mean to, but he does have a point. These odds of death are calculated in the existing condition where low-level explosives (e.g. fireworks and such) are somewhat controlled and regulated. They tell us nothing about the odds if this regulation was completely removed. I admit it doesn't necessarily mean that the odds will noticeably increase, but it also doesn't mean they won't.

Also, it's not just death. Yes, the chance of dying from fireworks are pretty low. But I suppose the chances of injury are noticeably higher. Even things that can't kill a person can still burn, scar, maim, or blind...

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

John,

What if it's 1.9m to 1 and not even slimmer odds because the restrictions and prohibitions on fireworks cause people to take greater risks with them due to their artificial shortage and the accompanying lack of familiarity caused by decreased exposure to fireworks? Is it not true that accidents decrease in regard to particular dangers when knowledge of said dangers is increased?

You are wrong. We deserve an apology from the socialists and the nanny staters. They also owe me a pack of bottle rockets.

Zach said...

You can actually blame them for causing more fireworks injuries. Sparklers look innocent enough, but they're the cause of most fireworks injuries in children (burns, most often), mostly because people think they're safe because they're legal. Nobody in their right mind would let a 4 year old light firecrackers or Roman candles, but, hey, the city says sparklers are legal, so they must be safe, right? Here you go, little kid. Happy 4th.

Ramsey said...

I think the ban of fireworks is more of a protection of property than life. I believe the odds of starting a fire with wayward fireworks is a bit more reasonable than of actually dying (esp in dry states or drought ridden areas).

Just a suggestion.

And conservatives try to 'protect' us from other things. Like porn, sex education, etc.

arctic_front said...

"The left has hijacked the term to apply to their idiotic nanny-state vision of entitlements and government controls, obscuring the actual meaning of liberalism, and you're helping them do it. "Leftists", "socialists", or "weenies" are all perfectly suitable terms for them. There's no need to throw mud on a great tradition of political and philosophical thought by co-opting their terminology." - Ryan Fuller

The correct term for Lefties is FASCIST there is no more accurate way to describe them, pure and simple.

Ryan Fuller said...

Dunno about calling them fascist. It's pretty hard for someone who hates their country to qualify as a militant nationalist, even if they meet the other criteria such as government intervention, central planning, etc.

dtrum said...

I know that it is really annoying how they hijacked the term "liberal", but give our Captain a break here. He needs to talk the language of the masses in order to have at least the slightiest chance of brightening up a single leftist mind.

Anyway, is there any realistic chance for us to turn back time and convince the liberals to adopt the only term that truly fits to their political philosophy: idiots?

Ryan Fuller said...

We already have plenty of other terms for them, some of which they're willing to accept themselves, like "left wing" or whatever. There's just no need to call them liberals, and it's certainly not helping things to do so.

Yaron said...

Paul said:
Is it not true that accidents decrease in regard to particular dangers when knowledge of said dangers is increased?

That sentence is true by itself, but not necessarily in this context. Sure, increasing exposure to dangers will increase knowledge of them. But it will not usually compensate for the fact that you also greatly increase the exposure to danger, and you expose people without requiring them to have any knowledge whatsoever about it.

Or are you suggesting that breeding poisonous snakes and releasing them to run in the streets would decrease the amount of deaths because of snakebites as well?
Would allowing anyone to drive a car, without passing any pesky licensing tests, decrease the risk of death and injury by car accidents?

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Yaron -

"Sure, increasing exposure to dangers will increase knowledge of them. But it will not usually compensate for the fact that you also greatly increase the exposure to danger, and you expose people without requiring them to have any knowledge whatsoever about it."

This doesn't make sense. If you increase knowledge of a danger of X, then unless you disregard what is known, you can decrease the danger of X. The latter half of your statement is about another matter, whether people ought to have relevant experience before being allowed to purchase and use fireworks. That is not what my statements are about.

Your counter examples fail. Snakes are living creatures that can act on their own; fireworks are inanimate objects that cannot. The comparison is apples to oranges: an increase in the number of animates that can attack people is not the same thing as an increase in the numbers of an inanimate that cannot hurt people unless they are improperly used.

Your car example also fails because it actual affirms my point - licensing is a process of exposure by which one gains familiarity with the dangers of an object (an automobile) and learns how to mitigate them. Maybe this is an argument for teaching people to properly use fireworks, and as a stretch maybe even a reason to license people for their use, but you've only affirmed my earlier statement about exposure to a danger increasing the knowledge of and ability of people to avoid said danger.

Now buy me some bottle rockets.

Dan said...

Yep, sparklers. So lame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK3Qb7jODSI

(Fast-forward to 1:00 for great justice.)