Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: Suddenly, next summer …

Nonseq

In today's Non Sequitur, Wiley Miller imagines a world in which people get what they ask for. The theoretical argument that we don't need a nanny state tends to break down quickly as soon as some individual realizes that government exists for a purpose, and it isn't simply to pave the roads. Or build nice beaches where people can drown or be eaten by sharks.

And, speaking of sharks, there's a pretty good metaphor lurking behind this cartoon, as most of the public figures railing against the nanny state have pretty well developed dorsal fins, or are working for companies that do. The people who object to the government protecting workers seem to be the same ones who also object to workers forming unions to protect themselves. There is a common thread there and I think you can trace it back to the offices of people who would never have dreamed of giving Abbie Hoffman HIS own talk show, despite his obvious ability to rile people up and generate ratings.

But they can't do it alone. I'm getting really tired of the "personal responsibility" advocates who hit the comments sections of news stories, so that, if there is a proposed law to keep lenders from using deceptive promises, they scream, "It's up to people to use money wisely! I never use a credit card! I pay cash for everything!"

To begin with, I would have loved to have seen the look on the Realtor's face when you bought your last house. But I also don't believe you paid cash for your last car. In fact, I'll bet you also claim to have been a Green Beret and to have saved General Westmoreland's life during the Tet Offensive, despite only being 40 years old.

But even those who aren't out-and-out liars seem to miss the point. We have lifeguards because people sometimes find themselves in trouble in the water, and it's not just non-swimmers doing stupid, irresponsible things. Good swimmers can also mess up, and then we help them, too. And, if you don't agree with the concept, at least have the decency to quit insisting that we are a "Christian nation."

I got in an extended comment exchange the other day with an apparently sincere woman who was inveighing against Dept of Agriculture guidelines for school lunches. She felt the schools should be able to serve junk food and sell candy and that it's up to parents to teach their children to make responsible decisions. I pointed out the difficulty of getting a 10-year-old to make that kind of decision with the parents absent, but she wasn't having that. She also didn't see that paying for decent food now might help avoid paying to treat diabetes and heart disease later. She was even immune to the argument that, if the schools wanted to serve junk food, they simply had to turn down the government money and fund their food program locally.

Now, that's a true believer! Just click the heels of the ruby slippers together three times and say, "Personal responsibility!"

Previous Post
Peanuts to be syndicated by Universal
Next Post
Behind the scenes: Paul Conrad ‘ousted’ from Times

Comments 3

  1. I’m always amazed by the false dichotomy of the internet. There is no middle ground between Absolute A and Absolute B.

  2. Matthew, if I understand you right, I agree. “Nanny state” refers to a gvt that _excessively_ protects everybody from their own stupid decisions. Obviously, there’s an optimum degree of such protection, and you can have too much or too little of it. I’m on the side that say that, by and large, our current gvt is going too far in that direction. And, of course, that optimum amount differs in time and space. That is, it is different for different countries, and for different time periods in the same country.

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.