Will the Nanny state become essential?

[Queen Elizabeth II]

The story of Hollie Dance, and others in the news as of late, has made me ponder something I come back to quite often.

Most of humanity is unremarkable. As the likes of Carlyle pointed out, there are only a few figures in history who are in some way special and direct the passage of history in some meaningful way.

While I don't agree with all of the great man theory, I think the consequence of the theory is more interesting and in today's environment in some way vindicates it.

In previous ages, most of humanity were forgettable and inconsequential whose only use were as resources for a ruler. Not entirely different from today.

Where today does differ however is that the masses are still forgettable and irrelevant, but they are far more base and degenerate. A Church or Lord has traditionally steered behaviours by carrot or by lash, and this authority was accepted in some manner.

Today, we live in an age when deference to authority is selective and there are alternative facts. Some individuals clearly cannot be trusted to make right decisions for their children or their lives, but where as before they existed in corners they are now brought to worldwide attention.

The idea of the NHS or a government department declaring that your child should be pulled of life support irrespective of your wishes or your religious beliefs does seem frightening...But where stupidity breeds, is this now necessary? Necessary to impose some degree of order.

In short through the waffle, I wonder if freedom to choose is not a good. Its not revolutionary, the east has always rejected it. But its all very tiresome, and I do wonder if things might be better if some were kept on a leash and if indeed for society to function they may need to be.

 

[WeWuzFinns]

The prevalence of state in westerner's lives has steadily increased since the ancient times, and there doesn't seem to be any stop. You will get the total dominance of nanny state, when you own nothing, live in pod and eat the bugs. The nannyism will get outsourced to companies like meta and alphabet, who will take as good care of you as loving beekeeper takes care of his bees.

 

[Butterschmalz]

No it wont. Every nanny state dies out sooner or later. There is no need for people to reproduce in a nanny state or they need somebody else to do it (immigration). How that is working out we are watching live right now. Its just a long and slow decline.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

It is important that the weak are corralled by the strong for their own good. To say otherwise is to deny the essential role of the family in human development. Today's government and society promotes degeneracy because the people who rule us like the WEF are evil and seek the very destruction of what makes us human in their quest to become physical gods. But the only way we can ever fix society is to become 90% like them and subject them and their degenerate supporters to everything they've subjected us to. Like the "nanny state" will now say "no, you can't promote sex, transgenderism, and drugs to teenagers, that's immoral" and enforce obscenity laws while banishing these smut peddlers and gay propagandists from polite society back to the filthy gay bars and dark corners of the internet they crawled out of.

The only other option is full-on Uncle Ted, and most people like technology and living past 50 a little too much for that, although it's still a better option than letting some of the most evil degenerates who ever lived destroy the human spirit for all eternity.

 

[Thunk Provoker]

This touches on the old problem of freedom vs. duty: can individuals be trusted to use their freedom morally? In today's political liberalism, freedom is considered a fundamental good that governments should guarantee, which extends to individual ethical positions. Of course, this inevitably becomes a communal (and thus political) issue because an individual's belief about what is right concerns not only themselves but also people in general.

But where stupidity breeds, is this now necessary? Necessary to impose some degree of order.

The problem here is that people need to agree with this degree of order in order for it to be effective, or else they may come to resent it. One of the objections to expanding authority is that it's possible for it to be abused, so any expansion needs to be acknowledged by the people as being in their best interests. As long as the nanny state can have support from the majority, it will survive.

 

[SPhobos]

sign me up for the mommy state

 

[Butterschmalz]

It is important that the weak are corralled by the strong for their own good.

So whos supposed to be the strong ones? The rich and powerful?

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

YES

LONG LIVE FRAN DRESCHER

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

So whos supposed to be the strong ones? The rich and powerful?

In an ideal society, the rich and powerful are those who won their position and wealth by merit, wisdom, and force of will, guided by virtuous beliefs and goodwill for those lesser than them. Basically the opposite of most of the WEF types, where the majority are mediocre hanger-ons of greater men and even the most capable of them are rotten to the core.

 

[Wormy]

In an ideal society, the rich and powerful are those who won their position and wealth by merit, wisdom, and force of will, guided by virtuous beliefs and goodwill for those lesser than them. Basically the opposite of most of the WEF types, where the majority are mediocre hanger-ons of greater men and even the most capable of them are rotten to the core.

So who gets to determine who is "Lesser" and "Greater"?

 

[SCSI]

In an ideal society, the rich and powerful are those who won their position and wealth by merit, wisdom, and force of will, guided by virtuous beliefs and goodwill for those lesser than them. Basically the opposite of most of the WEF types, where the majority are mediocre hanger-ons of greater men and even the most capable of them are rotten to the core.

Problem -- History's consistently shown that, among the rich and powerful, for every Cincinnatus, there's a thousand Caligulas. Even the best society falls short of the ideal you have in mind.

 

[PipTheAlchemist]

Fuck off, Elizabitch. I will not live in a nanny state. I won't eat the bugs, I won't live in a pod, I won't take the vaccine. Suck my fat dick and die

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Problem -- History's consistently shown that, among the rich and powerful, for every Cincinnatus, there's a thousand Caligulas. Even the best society falls short of the ideal you have in mind.

Caligula achieved his position not by merit, but by birth. Generations of historians knew this, that's why the Five Good Emperors who adopted their successors were always seen as the pinnacle of Imperial Rome.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

So who gets to determine who is "Lesser" and "Greater"?

It's determined by your KF post/day ratio. Power is distributed in descending order with ties broken by account age and then reaction score. Anyone who has never posted is automatically slave caste.

 

[SCSI]

Caligula achieved his position not by merit, but by birth. Generations of historians knew this, that's why the Five Good Emperors who adopted their successors were always seen as the pinnacle of Imperial Rome.

Right, but let me attempt to clarify what I meant by referencing those two -- given how shit the world is, the latter archetype looks to be a lot more common, and that goes double at the upper echelons of society's power structures, rather than the former. Some of it seems to be the old "power corrupts" ruining those who didn't start evil, and some of it I chalk up to the shitbags' inborn nature. There's a saying in the criminal justice/law community, "Anyone who really, really wants to become a cop, shouldn't." The same thing seems to be true when it comes to political power -- those who really, truly want it, hunger for it, are those that shouldn't have it. Those who should have it, by virtue of their good character and other skills, typically lack either the will or the skill to wrangle the power-hungry scumbags who lack all virtu* except for their ability to work people, so even if one of the rare ideal people goes for leadership, odds are, they either won't get the job, or will be rendered ineffectual by the swarms of assbags who should be in jail, rather than any position of authority.

Or, condensing and rephrasing, your ideal government requires angels to take the throne/gavel/Oval Office, and I don't think there are enough of them consistently available to even sustain a thought experiment. I wish it were different, but I don't think it is. (I also disagree with your core premise of some form of benevolent dictatorship being necessary or ideal, but that's based on philosophical sentiment and my views on morality, and I don't much like arguing those angles, those lines are too squishy and "muh shoulds and oughts and wishes".)

*Hot damn, haven't gotten to use the word virtu since my undergrad Political Philosophy classes and discussion of Machiavelli. Thank you for the opportunity to nostalgiafag.

*Disclaimer -- I'm at the bottom of my absinthe nightcap, so if anything I wrote above is less than coherent, my apologies. If so, feel free to imagine I instead posted some especially amusing string of slurs in whatever combination you find funniest, and enjoy your evening.

It's determined by your KF post/day ratio. Power is distributed in descending order with ties broken by account age and then reaction score. Anyone who has never posted is automatically slave caste.

Are you sure? Those who never post, only read, might be the wisest of all the Kiwis, for the true depths of their retardation remain concealed.

 

[Wormy]

It's determined by your KF post/day ratio. Power is distributed in descending order with ties broken by account age and then reaction score. Anyone who has never posted is automatically slave caste.

*SHRUG* Not the worst idea I've heard.