The Nanny States of America

Source:Wikipedia- with a look at the big government nanny state.

"Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.[1][2] The term likens such a government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing. An early use of the term comes from Conservative British Member of Parliament Iain Macleod who referred to "what I like to call the nanny state" in the 3 December 1965 edition of The Spectator.[3][4]

The term was popularised by journalists Bernard Levin[5] and Auberon Waugh[6] and later by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

By the 2000s, the term entered use in the United States by some political commentators. The term was used in an at-large sense against the legislative tendencies of liberal political ideology such as in the banishment of smoking in public places or the enactment of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.[20][21]

In 2012, a proposal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to restrict the sale of soft drinks in venues, restaurants, and sidewalk carts to 16 ounces led to the occasional derision of the mayor as "Nanny Bloomberg."[22][23]

David Harsanyi has also used the term to describe food labeling regulations, the legal drinking age, and socially conservative government policies.[24]

Conversely, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research think tank used the term in 2006 to describe conservative policies that protect the income of the rich." 

From Wikipedia 

"A recent proposal by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg looks to ban the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks over 16 ounces at city food establishments. The proposal has many questioning whether New York has gone too far with so-called ‘Nanny State’ laws that are thought by some to be overprotective or interfere too much with individual choice. “Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, “Oh, this is terrible”’ Mayor

A recent proposal by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg looks to ban the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks over 16 ounces at city food establishments. The proposal has many questioning whether New York has gone too far with so-called ‘Nanny State’ laws that are thought by some to be overprotective or interfere too much with individual choice.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,‘” Mayor Bloomberg said in an interview with the New York Times.“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something....I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do,” he added. However, those in the New York City beverage industry are up in arms about the proposed ban while residents are still trying to understand how Bloomberg’s plan could affect their everyday lives.

Bloomberg is not the only local politician in America to propose laws described as enhancing the ‘Nanny State.’ The following is a collection of laws that have had residents wondering whether the government is going too far. Click ahead for the list." 

Source:CNBC- Put the soda down, Sir. You don't want to be arrested.

From CNBC 

"Best known for her hit sitcom 'The Nanny,' actress Fran Drescher has also made a name for herself in the political sphere. She stops by NewsBeast to talk with John Avlon about her TV Land sitcom 'Happily Divorced,' healthcare legislation, and what she--a native new Yorker--thinks about Mayor Bloomberg." 

Source:The Daily Beast- Hollywood and New York City baby face Fran Drescher.

From The Daily Beast 

"Reason.tv presents a review of 2008's really annoying Nanny State bans." 

Source:Reason Magazine- Nanny State USA. Or should that be Nanny State NSA?

From Reason Magazine 

My personal definition of the nanny state: Big Government that not only tries to do too much (which is like the official definition of government) but government that tries to protect people from themselves. Government that sees individuals as essentially morons, who are unable to take care of themselves and make their own decisions. And therefor needs Big Government to do that for them, for the good of society, so individuals aren't able to make decisions that the society as a whole has to pay for.

I'm not trying to make the case that regressive leftists (as I call so-called Progressives) have a monopoly when it comes to the nanny state, because they certainly do not. And that so-called Christian Conservatives are completely innocent when it comes to the nanny state. They are both guilty when it comes to the nanny state, but for different reasons. And why they are on the fringe in American politics and both have anti-views when it comes to individual freedom, but go about it differently. 

So-called Christian Conservatives (who are really just Protestant, fundamentalist, populists) are nanny statists when it comes to things like censorship, pornography, political speech they disagree with, homosexuality, women's place in the world, what people can wear in public, etc, and unfortunately I could go on. But I trust you have other things you want to do with your lives then to hear this indefinite list.

But regressive leftist (who are like Neo-Communists) nanny statists have been in the news more lately with the soda ban. And have just fueled the stereotype that they want to control how Americans live their own lives. 

The paternalist Far-Left in America, doesn't trust Americans to be able to make basic fundamental decisions with their own lives. Like what to drink, or when it comes to hate speech, right-wing radio, Fox News, the "Fairness Doctrine" or what we can eat and drink. 

Regressive leftists feed the notion that they want to control Americans lives. That if Americans don't look at the world exactly the way they do and live their lives they way they do, that there's something wrong with them. They believe  that Uncle Sammy (whose no one's favorite uncle) or another jurisdiction has to fix that by outlawing whatever they feel needs to be fixed. That they are so bored with their lives and don't have enough to do themselves, that they have to try to live the lives of others.

You would think that regressive leftists in America must be unemployed and living off of trust funds, because they have so much free time on their hands, that they simply don't know what to do with it. So they try to mind other people's own damn business) because their normal business in life is too boring for them. Which is how you get all of these big government, nanny state laws from the Far-Left in America.