What is A Nanny State?                                                                                

        Image                 The simplest definitions is "A State where the Government believes it knows what is best for it's people". but it does not end nor confine itself to that narrow definition.   Which aspects to be "nannied" greatly depend on the type of Government you have.        Two fine examples of Nanny States were Nazis Germany and The USSR. Both were totalitarian Socialist regimes that sought to control the daily lives of its people. Both used utility and collectivism to achieve their ends. Both used a form of Politcal Correctness to control thoughts, Both cleansed undesirable elements from their populations. Though "cleansed" is far too nice of a word for the evil both perpetrated on its populations.

        Each had strong central governments that weilded unlimited power and each greatly limited the liberty of their people. Today in Western Democracies we are seeing a shift toward strong central government and the collectivization of our people under the banner of "progressivism" slowly traditional and ancient rights are being eroded under the guise of "The Greater Good". Creating what one might call benevolent nanny states, how ever these new nannies while putting on a kind face can be as cruel and unfeeling as the a fore mentioned totalitarian states. While gulags and concentration camps are non existent social sanctions are routinely placed upon non conformists viz different regulatory commissions. Rights are granted to groups at the expense of the individuals in the name of equality and certain individual behaviors become less acceptable. Over time said behaviors are regulated out of existence. Governments begin to believe that the individuals rights are the granted privileges of the Government which may be altered at anytime to suit an agenda, in Canada the agenda is always re-election  the keeping of power.

        Our Governments have no purpose other than to grow. It could be said we are managed by crisis. The cost of governence is staggering this cost always has to be justified there for our governments must always give the appearance of doing "Something". They do this by continualy passing Statutes and regulation (which are not LAWS they are acts of a legislation that operate with the force of law) to deal with in most cases imagined problems. These "problems" are brought to the attension of the Government by interest groups or lobbies who wish to have laws changed or enacted to suit their needs and purposes. These lobbies can run the gambit from big business to groups that feel the world has treated them unfairly. Each wants the rules set to favour them, again at the expense of the individual citizens.

        To give an example MADD a very laudable organization dedicated to the elimination of drunk driving. This organization was started by a mother who lost her daughter to a drunk driver. While I agree with the goal and ends of this organization and considering at the time 50% of traffic accidents could be directly linked to impaired driving. I take some quibble with what and how the law is enacted and enforced. Currently as it stands the penalty for drunk driving exceeds that of assault. The law is enforced by a flagarent abuse of power and individual rights and operates notwithstanding our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The R.I.D.E. programs that we see from time to time especially at Holidays is the same as putting police at the entrance of a department store to check bags and reciepts to catch shop lifters. The main problem of it is the obvious rights violation but the not so obvious is do they not have more than one entrance or exit? RIDE sets up on a street and acts like a filter, but do we not have many streets? Would not the high concentration of Police in one spot not be more effective spread over many streets patroling instead of being stationary? But it does make for good visibility. I only suggest that there must be a better way, one less intrusive to our rights and one that is more effective.


Modern Progressive Thinking


Image  Radical thinker Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 

        Socialist thought is not new, It has been around for at least two hundred years. Its foundation is rooted in the Philosophies of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism ( the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means.).  Collectivist seized upon this thought and formed what we now recognize as Socialism. 


                Liberalism, back in the day that it was conceived was  very radical. The term "Liberal" today conjures up some ill feelings in some. Largely due to the word loosing much of its original meaning. According to                

Compact Oxford English Dictionary


  • adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

  • noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

  — DERIVATIVES liberalism noun liberality noun liberally adverb.

  — ORIGIN originally meaning suitable for a free man: from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free man’.

Another permutation toward of the the Latin is Liberty.


        Can we say that this is true today?  We in Canada have seen a shift in the meaning of liberal. We have seen liberalism move more toward a "utility" approach to governance where by the ends justify the means,coupled with a fatal attraction towards collectivism. The best example of this to date is the Firearms Act. The Ends of this act was to lower gun crime. Making Canadians streets safer for everyone. No sensible person would even suggest that those ends are not worthy ends. I for one would love safer streets, all around a good idea. no? The question remains. Are the streets safer? Has the Firearms Act ended violence?


Do We Need Nannying?


        We all have a mother at one time or another. Our mothers worked diligently to keep us safe.  How many mothers do we need? To my thinking just one is more than enough, I have no desire in my adulthood to have the state act as a surrogate. I'm sure you might agree with that. Part of growing up is risk assessment deciding if the thrill of a  given activity was worth the possible repercussions from mom and dad. Or if satisfying a curiosity is worth the natural consequences. As Children surviving into adulthood we have learned our lessons from mom,dad and nature,we strike out on our own.  Autonomy from our parents was the reward of finally growing up why would we want to give up that autonomy? If we give up our autonomy to the state and replace mom and dad with the bureaucracy of the state we are merely extending our childhoods thus stunting our growth as individuals.

        If we expect our Governments to regulate every aspect of life we remove the natural consequences of actions and do not learn the lessons there by denying ourselves the wisdom of experience. For example we know if we spit into the wind there is a possibility that it will come back and hit us. Given that knowledge we can decide if it is a wise time to spit on a windy day. However if the State passes an Act that says we are not allowed to spit and we obey the Statute we never gain that wisdom. Critical thought is eliminated because the State has done that for us. Common Sense is diminished and a dependence upon the state has been created to be our common sense

        Terms like for the "greater good" "Public safety" or in the "public's interest" become the rational as the "Nanny State" takes shape. If that isn't enough they also encouraged "people" to get involved in keeping everyone safe as well. Benign safety issues are hardest to argue against.  Fear Mongering is the quickest easiest way to mobilize people.  A state of hysteria follows "hot buttons" like "child safety"   words like "Don't you want to keep your child safe?" "Better safe than sorry". "We are only thinking of the children" We all forget that we got to our ripe old ages without much of the safety equipment we are required by Statute to have today. The School Board of Toronto ripped out a large number of playgrounds in the name of "Child Safety" even though there was not a single recorded accident. The City Counsel of Vuaghan was talking about making helmets mandatory for children tobogganing (Let's make helmets mandatory for everyone )  


 The Public Heart Strings


                When you read or hear the word "Propaganda" one thinks of the wars or The Soviet Union ,Nazis etc. Not our Governments but propaganda is every where. We seem to think that propaganda has some falsehood to it or is misleading . The truth is, it is media designed to play you like a violin. Plucking at your heart strings whether it is showing the face of poverty or The Enemy of the state it is all designed to cause and emotional reaction. This calculated reaction was designed to shape public thought. Nanny uses words that frighten people or causes them to get a lump in their throat.

        The Coalition for Gun Control every year holds a Candle light vigil marking the anniversary of "L'ecole Polytechnique" shootings, which occurred almost 20 years ago to keep their movement alive. Check out the home page Coalition for Gun Control notice the slide show. Further they do not use logic, reason and real facts nor do they let anyone challenge their point of view. Instead they use the "Public Good" and Public safety angle. The hook is the pictures of those killed to tug at your heart strings. They have helped the past Liberal Governments create an atmosphere of fear to further their agendas.  They were paid minions of the Jean Chretien  Government. It remained true under  Paul Martin's. That's right your tax dollars in action.

        You don't Need That!!


                How many times have you heard or said that?? My bet is quite often in your existence on the planet. The favourite word of every parent next to " We'll see." I've said them both to my own child when trying to convince or defer a decision. It is natural to do it but that is not the thrust of this section.

        The thrust of this section is need. Who decides what one needs? In a free and democratic society the individual decides what their needs are followed by their desires and aspirations. As you can tell from the amount of consumer goods available that your choices are almost endless. As long as you have the ability to finance it. No one stands over you saying "you don't need that". However there are groups in our society that believe that they know what you need and don't need. They feel strongly enough about that they form lobbies and try to impose their point of view on the society at large. Could you imagine an enviromental group succeeding in lobbying the government to allow only compact cars, reasoning that "people don't need anything bigger". Would you feel cheated? Would you feel less cheated if the government then said that "some people need something bigger". Then made a rule saying that only farmers and businesses could own trucks or SUVs but certain individuals could own bigger cars and trucks but they would have to get a special license. Individuals would be required to give reason as to why they needed them but convenience is not a reason. Would giving the government all of your most personal information to obtain that license be reasonable?


        Here now I would like to raise a very grave issue. It affects every citizen in this Country. Many of us read about robberies, home invasions, violent beatings, stabbings, shootings,rapes and murders. It makes some people feel ill about the world we live in. Gangs, drugs, drug addicts all the really bad things about city life. While some are lucky not to have such troubles and have a bit of a comfortable distance from such things, they still happen.

        We operate under the belief that the Police are here to protect us. It is there job to stop crime. We believe that the government will do something about it so we don't have to. There is a FATAL flaw in that line of thought. . Indeed the function of Police is to investigate crime and keep order hence the term "Officer of the Peace".  It is not their job to protect you personally.  Albeit they do swear an oath to protect life they are not the guarantors of public safety.  Ah what about the Government? you say. Well the government passes legislation that become statutes after that you are on your own. It is you alone who is the guarantor of your safety and security.  The Criminal Code of Canada outlines what is illegal, quite frankly if passing a statute solved the problem then there would not be any need for Police.  In a perfect world that is true. Do we live in a perfect world?  Here is a list of people the Government believe worthy to protect R.C.M.P. Act Amendments 

        Believe it or not we have groups of people that have decided that you "Do not need" the means to guarantee your safety and security. They have even convinced the government and many in the media that you "Don't need" these means.  They have been so successful that even the populous at large thinks you "Don't need" the means. I'll wager that even you my loyal reader are under the same belief that you "Don't need" the means to defend your safety and security. Even though it is a fundamental right to have the means to do so.  After all even the police tell us not to resist an assailant just give them what they want. It is implied that, it will keep you safe from harm, but what it fails to say is that it is not guaranteed. In fact some people after complying with an assailant have in fact suffered grievace harm, some have even died following that advice.



        The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sadly a toothless document. Bit of a misnomer there. Might as well called it the Charter of Privileges and Permissions


         We have the right to "Security of the Person" translated the Right to Self Defense. It is the most ancient and most fundamental right a human being has  (which I will expand upon later) So you have this right but what does it mean really. Well sadly in Canada you have the right to defend yourself with not much more than a feather duster, provided your assailant is not hurt. I am being facetious,but there is a sad truth under that statement. Back in the seventies I saw the prohibition of martial arts weapons. For the most part they are non lethal defensive weapons developed by Okinawan peasants to defend themselves against unruly Samurai retainers (the Samurai had Outlawed weapons of steal).  Bruce Lee and company had made them famous. Indeed in the hands of an expert they could be quite lethal but not in the hands of most novices.

                But wicked cool martial arts weapons were not the only casualties of Nanny. Pepper spray, tasers other tools for self defence have become forbidden to ordinary citizens. Even a sidearm has been regulated out of existence. All the statutes have done is disarmed the citizen leaving them defenceless. Which leads to greater fear and anxiety among the children(Us) and making Nanny needed more than ever. Nanny however is an empty shell with a unhealthy passive aggressive streak and will not confront the real problems head on, instead Nanny passes "Feel good statutes" that only regulate the well behaved, while the problem child carries on.


  1.         Like a good Nanny or Mother the statute took the offending objects away equally from the children (US) but did it? The problem child (street toughs) took them back when Nanny's back was turned or went for the more traditional weapons of choice Knives and baseball bats. Which are low on the radar screen but still there is a theme or pattern developing here. First of which is The Government no matter what the appearance is cannot legislate good behavior nor can it legislate against insane acts. The second is some people will not behave in a manner that we want them to. Lastly the police are not able to prevent crime just because there is a law or statute against something. There is a strong belief these days that to solve a problem all one need do is pass a law banning something and the problem magically goes away. This is an ill conceived pattern of behavior that is becoming more and more common among Governments in Canada lately

    1 It is illegal to own a firearm. the exceptions are clearly stated. 1 you must have a license for the particular class of firearm  

    2 Must register said fire arm and have proof of registry at all times.


    Yet this has not hindered a single gang member, drug dealer or other criminal elements.




The Fear of Objects


        The fear of objects is an irrational fear, a phobia. Objects are inert pieces matter that if left alone will remain in a motionless state until an external force acts upon them. They have no will of their own no brain and no conscience.  My old martial arts instructor stuck a knife into the Dojo's floor and said "That knife will stay there until the building collapses it will not move, it will not do a damn thing. In that state it is not a weapon it is a mere hunk of wood and steel." He then pick it out of the floor held in a threatening manner at his assistant instructor and said "Now it is a weapon." No inanimate object is capable of acting upon its own, it requires a human to determine its use.  This is true of everything in life even crack cocaine. Crack pipes do not make people smoke crack it is the human who elects to.

        This is the fundamental problem of the Nanny State it requires fear to operate, fear of objects and fear of your fellow man. Media generates and perpetuates the fear in the  mind of the public, fear motivates people to look to the government for solutions after all they have the power to make laws and enforce them. but the objective of Government is Power. Like the crack addict they are always hungry for their drug "Power". Under the pretext of the greater good they affect the lives of every good citizen. As we become more dependent upon them to look after us we become co-dependents we are willing give up our rights for security. We become helpless children always looking for Nanny to make things right for us. Like crack cocaine it is a false promise.  



The Side of Socialism never talked about


        The is a side to Socialism that is rarely mentioned.  A side that is not theoretical but indeed has been put into practise.  

        I would like to mention now a word that today is never spoke of in polite socialists circles. None the less one cannot mention a Socialist Nanny State with out including it. It is as much apart of social engineering as politcaly correct speech. And Now A Word About .....Eugenics. Explaning eugenics in the simplest of terms is the ridding society of undesirable elements.  Here is an article by journalist Micheal Coren Socialists made eugenics Fashionable . I could never do the subject justice however Mr Coren does it quite well



Socialists made eugenics fashionable

Michael Coren, National Post  Published: Tuesday, June 17, 2008


        An exhibition of the history of those scientific ideas that gave a grimy intellectual veneer to the Nazi genocide opened recently at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The collection centres on eugenics, the notion that humanity can be improved and perfected by selective breeding and the elimination of individuals and groups considered to be undesirable. Entitled Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race, it reveals how it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.

        The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.

        It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left.

        The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. He argued in best-selling books such as Anticipations and A Modern Utopia that the world would collapse and from this collapse a new order should and would emerge.

        "People throughout the world whose minds were adapted to the big-scale conditions of the new time. A naturally and informally organised educated class, an unprecedented sort of people." A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were "people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition", including "the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow." Christians would also "have to go" as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of "preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence" of the mentally and physically handicapped. "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved."

        The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot. "I take it they will have to go" he said of them. Marriage as it is known would have to end but couples could form mutually agreed unions. They would list their "desires, diseases, needs" on little cards and a central authority would decide who was fitted for whom.

        Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race. Religion would be banned, children would be raised in communes and all would be well. The old and the ill would, naturally, have to be done away with and doctors would be given the authority to decide who had a right to live, who had a duty to die.

        In the United States socialist writer Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the mother of the abortion movement, called for a radical eugenics approach as early as the first years of the 20th century. She wrote of the need for "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."

        The key of civilization. Unlocking the doors of a hell once unimaginable but now, after the Holocaust, the Ukrainian genocide, Pol Pot and Mao's mass slaughter, entirely within the grasp of contemporary sensibilities. History is often clouded by fashion and the whims of the victorious. Because some of the most pernicious intellectual criminals of the past century wore red they have escaped condemnation. It is time for the clouds to clear and the fashions to change.

www.michaelcoren.com - Broadcaster Coren's biography of H. G. Wells was described by The New Yorker as "superb" and The Times as "outstanding."




Addictions and Recovery


        The first step is recognizing you have one. The next step is working toward getting the monkey off your back. Unlike chemical addictions, addictions to power and the dependency upon government power is easier but just as lengthy.  There is not a 12 step program to follow. It requires one to be scrupulously and diligently suspect of every government. It requires you to act. Let your representatives in Government know your thoughts on their policy. Just because it does not affect you, it might affect someone you do know. Now for the hard part. even though you might agree with the legislation in principle ask your self "What rights are abrogated?" just remember something you hold dear might come under the eye of the Government like riding ATV's or something. but most of all FIGHT THE URGE TO UTTER THE SENTENCE. "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT"" The odds are there is a law on the books already that could apply. Educate yourself, ignorance of the law and our rights is no excuse. When you finally realize that you don't need the government to act as your second mother, we all might begin to see the end of  

        "Lets pass more laws and regulations. We know we can't actually do anything but we can't look like we can't. VOTES PEOPLE!!! votes are at stake! (to be continued)