Is your country a nanny state?

There is at least one toad species and two frogs species that I know of..... That are medicine for the mind....

The consuming of these creates an altered mental state .

It turns out, the world of the amphibians.... Actually has a lot to show humankind

 

Yes indeed, they had to modify anything they used from nature so they could slap a patent on it and call it their own. No wonder people suffer side effects from the crap they produce.

 

Amen Brother!

This is the real objective of the so-called war on drugs.

They have to protect the profits....

 

I am Australian and can confirm this to the core. You really realize it when travelling, even places that have big reputations for overregulation (the European Union for instance) are far, far better at refraining from nanny state BS than us. It's like I was released from a prison I never knew I was in.

Go to Croatia - everyone is cycling around without helmets, buying their $3 ciggies, buying their 1 Euro Coronas and drinking in the street. It also felt like one of the safest countries I've been to.

A personal favorite is that my state has banned smoking indoors everywhere in the state, even if you own the business. One exception: the high roller's room at Crown Casino, because the higher ups are very good friends with the regulators, so they got an exemption put in the law that basically says "anywhere BUT the high roller room at Crown Casino". The collusion between government and big business is off the charts in Australia.

The big benefit of Australia that no country has is of course the outback. We are a country roughly the size of mainland USA with 25 million people. The freedom in regional areas is unparalleled. I can drive up the coastline for hundreds of kilometers without seeing another person. It's the cities that are poison: ugly same-same modernist architecture, overtaxed, overregulated, unaffordable wastelands with vain, inconsiderate people who are very attached to their cage, and will fight to defend it. I personally don't like to think about where we'll be in a couple of decades - it's likely you won't be able to go to many regional areas because of the woke indigenous bureaucracy we're setting up.

When I am a bit older I think I'll probably summer hop between here and somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, probably a decent US state or Switzerland.

PS: most of our problems stem from one fact: over 86% of Australians live in urban coastal cities.

 

We've added 1Mil since the last time you checked the population of Aus.

 

My country (Germany) is a real nanny state. Nothing wrong with that. I think lots of people here want it that way. Statehood has to serve many citizens who need a nanny.

Most people doesn't like to fight jungle wars of "survival of the strongest". They need a context that guarantees them eternal peace and continuous security.

That's utopia, where the human race is bound to.

 

That's a bit sad. Born into it, so you know no better.

 

I remember when my local K-Mart store sold guns and related items at its own shop within a shop, that's going back 45 years ago. Thanks to the Father's Day massacre in 1984, places like that disappeared into the nanny state zone.

 

Born into it and learned to love it.
What's better? Eternal fighting against fictuous foes, or believing the nanny, telling you to make love not war?

 

It’s one thing if a law is just intended to prevent people’s personal decisions from hurting themselves. I think that can be correctly described as a nanny law. But if the intent is to protect the public at large from the personal decisions of others, that sounds more like state than nanny state to me.

 

I would rather have my dangerous freedom.

 

Time for an analogy.
So if you were born with two legs and had the capability to walk and run, but yet a system you were born into conditions you to believe that all you can do after your birth is just crawl all your life. Sounds as if the condition has worked on you.

 

I don't see your logic as clearly as you do. For having to obtain picnic, bbq permits and eating at a café on a footpath, etc. doesn't come off as being a means of protecting people, moreso as controlling them.

 

Yes, I read the site and your OP. It has Singapore, the UK, the US, Australia, and others. And in all the instances, a reporter described them as a nanny state and that is all Wikipedia is using. Second, I read your examples. Again, you are giving gross and vague examples that can be applied to both sides. For instance, buying alcohol after 10pm. That is not suggesting anything. And to some extent, after a certain time, if a person is buying alcohol after a certain time, say 10pm, there is only one intention, to get drunk, perhaps drink and drive, which could mean a DUI in Australia. This is a public safety issue, not a nanny state. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Second, age restriction sites. This is something universal in almost every country I know of, even Japan where nudity and sex is more open than in the US and Australia IMO. But that is a preventative and legal measure by those webistes so they are not accused of selling pornography to minors, a serious violation of law in both Australia and the US if one is accused and charged. And again, nothing is suggesting a nanny state at all.

 

This has most to do with protecting the brick and mortar restaurant establishments than anything else. It is why these laws exist. It is also why a food truck cannot park in front of a restaurant and offer another choice even though there may be a half dozen other restaurants in a brick and morter building doing that.

 

If cycling laws are only being applied at the local level, then it goes against the nanny state. The nanny state implies a nationwide occurrence in its definition. For instance, in the USA, if you want to hold a protest of certain amount of people, usually between 20 to 50 depending on the jurisdiction, you must apply for a permit. The permit allows the government to plan any future or possible traffic issues, the use of law enforcement to protect the protesters AND counterprotesters, and so forth. It is pretty much automatic in approval unless the group is not honest about what and where they are protesting. But again, not a nanny state at all.

 

No more like the Church, the Catholic Church that is. This was especially true in Europe in the middle ages where faith and God was very prominent in Roman Cathoic countries, including the British Aisles where Christianity was dominant.

 

It's interesting you state this when others on this thread paint a different picture of what you perceive as a nanny state.

 

How is that going to effect restaurants?
Picnic permit: councils that charge to go to the park

The council/state will build and maintain parks, but you have to pay to use them!!!

 

More control.

Most of it would be common sense, but they have to make laws for it. Time to brush your teeth and eat your veggies.

 

You're saying that modern science got modern medicine from the Catholic Church?

 

Is it really a nanny state if we’re down to just those three laws? (You obviously omitted the other laws because they obviously implicate public safety.). Besides I can think of ways that a BBQ could be a public safety concern. So now we’re down to two. And I can think of why picnic laws were a public safety concern during Covid-19. Now we’re down to one. I honestly don’t know what it means to eat at a cafe on a footpath so I’ll let you have that one.

 

Why do nation states have a monopoly on the nanny state? Can New York State not be a nanny state with their soda bans despite the US not having such laws?

 

Because nanny state

 

It's three from the OP, I was referring to them because they were the ones quoted from the other thread participant. Capiché.
Don't forget to eat your veggies and brush your teeth.