Nanny state, nanny regulations and nanny citizens

There is much ado about what some people regard as the brainwashing of children, others call it instilling their children with values, others still, teaching.  Oh wait, I left out passing on the faith.

You know the one those not having any have so much to say about.

 Whatever the concept it’s clearly a case of different strokes for different folks.  For the benefit of those who might misunderstand the gist of the article, I am referring to one’s OWN children, not anybody else’s.

We have become a typical Nanny society with everybody pecking at everyone else like confused birds, with all and sundry having an opinion, not always a worthy one of course, but the worst of it is that this ‘attitude’ is regarded as laudable.  In previous generations this view would have been treated with short shrift and its ‘dictators’ dismissed as busybodies in addition to being told to mind their own business.  Now anybody with a p.c. can jump onto their high horse and lecture the world,- especially parents,- noxious NGO  and their ‘childless’ experts,  psychologists,  social workers, and government spokesmen owned by lobbyists.

The trouble is we have become regulated within centimetres of our lives and there are too many complacent citizens. Again, regulation is just another form of control by governments and institutions.

What exactly is a nanny state? Why does it exist? Let’s take a look.

There are dangers in eroding parental authority, and this is what’s happening.

Instead of being the bosses in their own homes parents have become mediators in the relationship between child and state, and told that their main responsibility is not to do right by their child but

to do the right thing according to the current parenting orthodoxy.

Maybe the problem is that civil society has retreated from its former ‘job’ of caretaking children so the state has moved in. Power abhors a vacuum to borrow an idiom.

Robert Nisbet, communitarian libertarian states; In a society without strong private associations, the State would take their place…..assuming the role of the schoolroom, the church and the family.

The other problem is that some people- in the nanny state- feel empowered to report a parent 

because they aren’t managing their children the way I think they should. So unless the most sensitive, neurotic, or obnoxious person in the neighbourhood’s views are catered to, it is now a crime. As parents always query other parent’s skills and choices because hey, we always know best, this is just human nature at work. So of course it goes without saying that everyone who agrees with us is brilliant. Needless to say the converse applies as well.

Someone aptly said that criminal law is not a child-rearing tool. I’m referring to those who rush out and contact the authorities- out of self- righteous passion- or spite, do you really think that a child would be better off being reared as a ward of state rather than being raised by a loving parent in their formative years. Does turning a parent into a criminal make a child’s life better?

Remember, the only reason authorities and their protagonists don’t want parents as the prime authority in a child’s life is because THEY covert this role. And that’s a really scary thought.

Remember Mao’s cultural revolution was to eliminate the parents and teachers who wouldn’t conform to the new order, why? Well the children would be putty in their hands, and all obstacles in their quest of creating good little communists had been removed. With the cherry on the top being the state installed as the new parents.

In closing, parents have the right to raise their children how they see fit, including instructing them in values, faith etc. regardless whether anyone else approves or not. It doesn't matter what YOUR views are, they don't feature in the scheme of things, rather concentrate on your own children and leave other people's alone. 

So to all you control freaks, aka

governments, institutions and nanny citizens out there take a hint.

Two words for you; lay off.          



MerryMartin 2014/08/08 08:00:53 AM
I get where you are coming from, but sorry, Reflect, but I cannot agree with this statement... " parents have the right to raise their children how they see fit, including instructing them in values, faith etc. regardless whether anyone else approves or not." The problem with this statement is this - if a parent, for religious reasons, does not believe in medical intervention, should the child be left to die for the beliefs of the parent, or does the State have the right (and duty) to step in? If a parent takes the "spare the rod and spoil the child" too far, should we turn a blind eye? Let the child be abused because the religion of the parent is "untouchable"? I understand a parent wishing to share the joy of their particular religion with their children, but no religion should be above scrutiny and questioning. There should not be any more sacred cows.
sxp 2014/08/08 08:22:49 AM
Laws exists because of evil people and statute exists for politicians, bankers and the legal okes, to control and steal from the whole population.
Johnny B Goode 2014/08/08 09:04:48 AM
So basically you are saying a Jehova's witness should be allowed to disallow his child a blood transfusion or if you are a xtian science gook that prayer supercedes medical treatment. Don't beat around the bush what branch of craziness is it that you want to inflict upon your children?
Bruce Wilson 2014/08/08 09:31:27 AM
Religious people demonstrate by adhering to their nonsensical beliefs that they are not capable of processing information and arriving at a logical conclusion. These people who are obviously not capable of reason and demonstrate that they lack basic logic; should not be placed in a position of authority or be allowed to influence young children. ..
CosmicBob 2014/08/08 10:11:59 AM
And you call me sensationalist? Pah!
Johnny B Goode 2014/08/08 10:46:31 AM
Ironic that you keep clinging to an archaic desert nanny god.
Mathew Clark 2014/08/08 11:19:55 AM
Not sure how this became just one more of those "imagine this, that or the other extreme religious value and then let's get all anti-God again!" outings. Agreed, the author's presuppositions of a "family" seem to be white middle-class within a post-Christendom context (in other words, memories of Judaeo-Christian values still float around in the collective consciousness) however those who comment should be able to respond in a reasoned and civil manner while allowing for that. The boundaries of the collective's (the state's) right to prescription and intervention in the detail of human life are under intense scrutiny in just about every culture at present. In the west, state's wield power by allocating tax-payer's money in support or opposition to the ideology of the collective. This despite the fact that not every taxpayer supports the state's ideology, but still has to pay the taxes while being discriminated against in their deployment. Whether evangelical Christians in the UK, the Tea Party in the US, anti-Erdogan in Turkey, Euro-sceptics in Europe (remember the last EU elections?), Russian critics of Putin's new empire - a variety of voices from across the political and cultural spectrum are questioning the right of a single centralised entity to not only set the values in their homes and communities, but also to monitor compliance therewith. Big Brother's watching might protect from some evils, but is sowing seeds of a new sort of totalitarianism. I know, I live in UK.
Enzo Ball 2014/08/08 11:23:02 AM
But I guess you didn't have a problem with the state whilst enforcing your religion on society only a few years ago? I've never felt intruded by the state or otherwise in raising my children. You're making a lot of unsubstantiated statements, why not give a few practical examples to prove your point?
slipslidinaway 2014/08/08 11:24:36 AM
Siebert Mazus 2014/08/08 01:41:10 PM
Relect writes: -Whatever the concept it’s clearly a case of different strokes for different folks. For the benefit of those who might misunderstand the gist of the article, I am referring to one’s OWN children, not anybody else’s.- Actually, the children of parents who leave their children to starve, should be taken away from their OWN parents.