Town Square

The Nanny State and Our Right to Resist on Behalf of Our Children

Original post made by Zinfandel on Jul 18, 2012

Some readers apparently think that seatbelts should be mandatory, not only for autos but for school busses as well. Next they're going to mandate house helmets for oldsters and drunk driving laws. When will they get things straight. The role of the state isn't to protect us and our children, it is to ensure our freedom!!!


Posted by Some Dude, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Didn't we just do this? I thought this conversation got locked. Please don't feed the Kathleen.

Posted by Cab, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jul 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm

I must begin with a quote from Staceleen Ruegsnegger from another post. She says

"As to child restraints, car seats, booster seats, seat belts--I would have chosen those (as I did with the bike helmet before there was a law) options when they were available. Didn't need the nanny state to tell me to do it."

And then allow me to continue/complete her thought. "Now don't bring up to me that some parents are irresponsible. That's THEIR kid's problem. I don't want the Nanny state stepping in and saving kids' lives if it compromises my freedom. Because that's all that's really important to ME."

Of course the reasoning is pathetic, completely oblivious to the real dangers kids face on account of having evil or uncaring parents. But Staceleen Rugsinnuggle only cares about herself, which is reflected in a curious inability to reason about anything in this world beyond the sphere of her own navel. Indeed, I think her reasoning on this point is emblematic of the short-sightedness of all of her Tea Party cohorts. It's rather astonishing how stupid people rationalize being stupid!

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Web Link Thought this might be helpful.

Posted by Cab, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jul 18, 2012 at 2:14 pm

I guess use of the 'web link' is another variant of "I'll get back to you later." Or more to the point: "I haven't found a link that is relevant to your point or the idiocy of my own, so I'll toss any link I can think of up upon the board."

I would have appreciated a comment more to the point of the posting rather than this blatant attempt to steer the topic off course. This happens all too frequently with this poster. It seems impossible to have a conversation beyond the web link she mindlessly posts. It begs the question of whether there is anyone at home. Hello?

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

You'd save yourself a lot of time if you would stop "continu(ing)/complet(ing) my thoughts" and following the terms of usage for this site. Everything you said, other than reposting my comment, is false.

Posted by Cab, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jul 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Wasn't stating facts, Staceleen. I was forwarding an opinion on the astonishingly thin logic you employ whenever asked to step outside your little rightwing link-sender box. My comments don't reduce to 2+2=4; they exist as validity claims with she who formulated those claims quite open to attempts to repudiate. I think that you shy away from such a task speaks to your inability to present much of a showing for yourself.

Here's a task for you to get you back out of your self-righteous victimization mode: Go to internet and begin reading about libertarianism, libertarian claims, and where children fit into the equation. Ah, but alas, you'll find that long ago it was established that children don't fit, at all, into the libertarian view of one's navel being the most important thing in the world. The role of children in your pinched little ideology is that of property, chattel, nothing more.

Posted by Some Dude, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm

What's a validity claim?

Posted by Cab, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jul 18, 2012 at 3:13 pm

"Based upon my read of the polls, I predict Obama will win the election." (Example of a validity claim that is judged not by truth/falsity but by the connection between facts and prediction and the deductive reasoning at its basis.) This kind of validity claim usually elicits a 'But how can you say that?' Or, 'I think your deduction is invalid.' Not so much the response: 'False!'

"So, given what Staceleen has stated, it follows either that she doesn't have a very good grasp of the pernicious aspects of her ideology (that it assigns children the role of chattel) or that she does have a good grasp and thus embraces the idea of children being chattel in the libertarian's world." This usually would earn a refutation that points to a possible failure of deductive reasoning, not a simple failure to explicate truth.

Any truth claim is a validity claim -- i.e., it purports to have evidence to support the claim. But there are other types of validity claims: Obama is the best president in recent US history; I think Van Gogh is a better painter than Renoir; I'm feeling peeved at your impudence; Do you promise to take this woman ... 'I do'. (Ever hear anyone in a church or synagogue shout out "False!" after an "I do" at a wedding ceremony? The "I do" functions as a validity claim, here not specifically as a truth claim, but one involving sincerity.

But, Some Dude, I suspect you already know this.... So why am I writing this? No doubt in hopes of continuing this highly instructive conversation on how, because Staceleen would seatbelt in her child irrespective of what the law mandates, it then follows that Nanny state child seatbelts laws are oppressive things that restrict Staceleen's personal freedom. And what about the neighbors' kids? Who cares? My navel has no room for them.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I would buy seat belts and other safety features not required by law (and have). I would not choose to so restrict my neighbor's decisions--others may choose to do so (and have). I do care about children, anyone's child(ren), just not enough to demand that others do as I do. So others choose to mandate lots of features that drive up the prices of cars, enough so that plenty of people hang on to their clunkers, with few safety features, jeopardizing child(ren). You can't make them buy a new car; well, not yet anyway. If someone could cherry pick what they need and can afford, maybe they'd get that newer, safer car.

But, apparently some of us believe that others of us are incapable of making proper decisions on our own, so laws are made "for their own good." Pretty amazing presumption by some about the judgment abilities of others.

Posted by Cab, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jul 18, 2012 at 4:27 pm


Staceleen does not want the state to be able to mandate that she or her neighbors must have safety carseats for their kids.

Now, Staceleen cares for children, she really does.

But just not enough to have their parents have to provide safety carseats for their kids as the state mandates.

You see, her care for children is subordinate to her belief that kids' parents should NOT be mandated to have safety child seats for their kids. In other words, she cares more about the freedom of parents, good and bad, to do whatever the heck they want to their kids than she cares about the likelihood of seeing kids' bloodied bodies sprawled out across our highway system.

Since Staceleen would voluntarily buy a child carseat, she expects others would do the same. (Here is the navel principle at work.) And if they don't? What about their kids? Well, Staceleen really cares about them, she really does, only not so much that the state should have the authority to mandate safety carseats to ensure their safety. Hey, kids are going to die. But Staceleen is okay with that, because at least their parents won't be shackled by awful state laws meant to protect our children.


Child safety car seats are SOOOOOO expensive. If people weren't mandated by the state to provide a car seat for their kids, they'd be able to afford newer and safer cars. That's why people drive clunkers; all of their savings have been wasted on getting a child safety seat for their cars.

Staceleen is a bad parent. Staceleen is a bad neighbor and bad citizen. Her selfish want for her and her deadbeat neighbors to be able to CHOOSE whether or not they want to buy a safety seat for their kids shows a clear disregard for children in her community. She is, however, a real rightwing nutjob, zealous as they come, doing the Tea Party proud.

Staceleen is soft in the head.

Conclusion (based upon 1 and 2):
We have clear evidence from Staceleen's 'reasoning' why most Americans shun libertarians and Tea Baggers alike.

I'm happy she's not my neighbor.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jul 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

CONCLUSION: You are not my neighbor, therefore you need guidance from the nanny state in order to do the right thing.