On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that in the "do-gooders"
trying to expand role of government to eliminate perceived risk from
any and all ordinary actions in daily activities.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". The only function of the state imo is to try to offer a
corrective remedy to alleviate the events of either the true accident
or that of the idiots or worse who do stupid or criminal things either
on purpose or by the side-effect of poor decision-making. Either way,
it's the individual who bears the responsibility, not the state...

And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. Etc. Etc.


I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.