4 ms·

Counterpoint: software such as thermostats that control our energy consumption or phones that lock themselves while you're driving are better if people can't co

Counterpoint: software such as thermostats that control our energy consumption or phones that lock themselves while you're driving are better if people can't consume in a responsible manner. Is it nanny-state? Yes, but maybe some people need a nanny.

alansammarone 9y ago
While it is true that some people probably need a nanny, I feel like forcing everybody to have a nanny is highly unfair and not a viable solution.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Well, if some people need a nanny, and most don't, how do you make those who need a nanny to buy the version of the product that has the nanny? Either you force everyone to get the nanny version (heavy-handed, especially to those who don't need it), or you rely on people who need the nanny version getting it (which only helps those who can admit that they have a problem). The only other alternative is something like having some objective event trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version. For example, a driving-while-texting ticket could trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version of a phone that won't text while you're in a car.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Same system as DUI ignition interlocks. When people mess up, slap restrictions on them.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > having some objective event trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version The problem with this is, who gets to decide which objective event is the trigger? There is no real solution to this problem; it always ends up with a hodgepodge of arbitrary rules that benefit certain people (those with wealth and power), but are a net loss for society as a whole.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Well, either the trigger is legally enforceable, or it is not. If it's legally enforceable, then a legislature gets to decide. If it's not, then either the manufacturer decides, or it doesn't happen.
      - pdonis 9y ago
        > If it's legally enforceable, then a legislature gets to decide. Which in practice, at least in the US, means that unelected bureaucrats get to write the detailed regulations that actually decide, based on extremely vague and broad laws written by the legislature. Which in turn means that people with wealth and power can manipulate the system to get regulations passed that benefit them but are a net loss to society as a whole. > If it's not, then either the manufacturer decides Which isn't any better. > or it doesn't happen Which would be my desired outcome. If only.
        manquer 9y ago
        > unelected bureaucrats you make it sound as though this not desirable. To seem it seems likely that career professionals have higher chances of being effective and unbiased than elected officials whose campaigns need to be funded and poses no other qualification/ experience than being adult citizen .
        pdonis 9y ago
        > it seems likely that career professionals have higher chances of being effective and unbiased than elected officials This sounds nice in theory. In practice the unelected bureaucrats will not be "career professionals" with the proper professional ethics and willingness to be unbiased. Look up "regulatory capture".
pdonis 9y ago
> if people can't consume in a responsible manner The problem is that in the nanny state regime, the state gets to define what counts as "responsible". Which really means certain people (those with wealth and power) get to impose their definition of "responsible" on everyone else.
- npsimons 9y ago
  Case in point, does anyone really believe seeing a nipple is more harmful than seeing violence?
panopticon 9y ago
> Yes, but maybe some people need a nanny. As much as a loathe to make the slippery slope argument, who decides where the line is? What is "okay" nannying, and what pushes the envelope? I think there are other ways of encouraging behavior (e.g., non-linear energy pricing for electricity) that don't totally remove free will from the equation.
naringas 9y ago
> maybe some people need a nanny. children do
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  All snark aside, there's often situations where it makes sense to want to be controlled. Coordination problems, in short. There's situations where everyone is better off if everyone follows a particular rule, but people are personally rewarded for breaking the rule. Say, "don't catch all the fish in a lake", or "don't have loud parties late at night that wake up your neighbors". Following the rule yourself won't magically make other people follow the rule as well. As far as the mobile phone example goes - yes, anti-texting-while-driving software is something I would not install on my phone if given the choice. I'd consider making it mandatory to install it on all phones, though. I'm responsible enough to not text while driving, but whether I make that decision correctly doesn't keep someone else from plowing into me.
breadbox 9y ago
But of course the problem here is that the nanny is the corporation, which is just as inclined towards -- and far more capable of -- advancing itself to the detriment of the consumer.
cr0sh 9y ago
Guess I'll keep my Honeywell mercury tilt switch thermostats a little while longer. As for the phone - if things start going this route, they can keep the damn thing. I'll figure out some other way to communicate, I don't have to have their phone. Furthermore - in regards to the thermostat setting: If I have the money to pay my bill for what I use, what damn business is it of anyone what I do as long as I can pay for it, and it isn't directly harming them? Again - they'll have a hard time though bypassing tech that's 100+ years old... But if the power company says "well - you have to have this to get power from us" - then that just moves me one step closer to going off-grid.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Even if some people need a nanny, they don't need a greedy, amoral nanny motivated entirely by perceived short term profits.

alansammarone 9y ago

While it is true that some people probably need a nanny, I feel like forcing everybody to have a nanny is highly unfair and not a viable solution.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Well, if some people need a nanny, and most don't, how do you make those who need a nanny to buy the version of the product that has the nanny? Either you force everyone to get the nanny version (heavy-handed, especially to those who don't need it), or you rely on people who need the nanny version getting it (which only helps those who can admit that they have a problem). The only other alternative is something like having some objective event trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version. For example, a driving-while-texting ticket could trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version of a phone that won't text while you're in a car.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Same system as DUI ignition interlocks. When people mess up, slap restrictions on them.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > having some objective event trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version The problem with this is, who gets to decide which objective event is the trigger? There is no real solution to this problem; it always ends up with a hodgepodge of arbitrary rules that benefit certain people (those with wealth and power), but are a net loss for society as a whole.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Well, either the trigger is legally enforceable, or it is not. If it's legally enforceable, then a legislature gets to decide. If it's not, then either the manufacturer decides, or it doesn't happen.
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > If it's legally enforceable, then a legislature gets to decide. Which in practice, at least in the US, means that unelected bureaucrats get to write the detailed regulations that actually decide, based on extremely vague and broad laws written by the legislature. Which in turn means that people with wealth and power can manipulate the system to get regulations passed that benefit them but are a net loss to society as a whole. > If it's not, then either the manufacturer decides Which isn't any better. > or it doesn't happen Which would be my desired outcome. If only.
      - manquer 9y ago
        > unelected bureaucrats you make it sound as though this not desirable. To seem it seems likely that career professionals have higher chances of being effective and unbiased than elected officials whose campaigns need to be funded and poses no other qualification/ experience than being adult citizen .
        pdonis 9y ago
        > it seems likely that career professionals have higher chances of being effective and unbiased than elected officials This sounds nice in theory. In practice the unelected bureaucrats will not be "career professionals" with the proper professional ethics and willingness to be unbiased. Look up "regulatory capture".

pdonis 9y ago

> if people can't consume in a responsible manner The problem is that in the nanny state regime, the state gets to define what counts as "responsible". Which really means certain people (those with wealth and power) get to impose their definition of "responsible" on everyone else.

npsimons 9y ago
Case in point, does anyone really believe seeing a nipple is more harmful than seeing violence?

panopticon 9y ago

> Yes, but maybe some people need a nanny. As much as a loathe to make the slippery slope argument, who decides where the line is? What is "okay" nannying, and what pushes the envelope? I think there are other ways of encouraging behavior (e.g., non-linear energy pricing for electricity) that don't totally remove free will from the equation.

naringas 9y ago

> maybe some people need a nanny. children do

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
All snark aside, there's often situations where it makes sense to want to be controlled. Coordination problems, in short. There's situations where everyone is better off if everyone follows a particular rule, but people are personally rewarded for breaking the rule. Say, "don't catch all the fish in a lake", or "don't have loud parties late at night that wake up your neighbors". Following the rule yourself won't magically make other people follow the rule as well. As far as the mobile phone example goes - yes, anti-texting-while-driving software is something I would not install on my phone if given the choice. I'd consider making it mandatory to install it on all phones, though. I'm responsible enough to not text while driving, but whether I make that decision correctly doesn't keep someone else from plowing into me.

breadbox 9y ago

But of course the problem here is that the nanny is the corporation, which is just as inclined towards -- and far more capable of -- advancing itself to the detriment of the consumer.

cr0sh 9y ago

Guess I'll keep my Honeywell mercury tilt switch thermostats a little while longer. As for the phone - if things start going this route, they can keep the damn thing. I'll figure out some other way to communicate, I don't have to have their phone. Furthermore - in regards to the thermostat setting: If I have the money to pay my bill for what I use, what damn business is it of anyone what I do as long as I can pay for it, and it isn't directly harming them? Again - they'll have a hard time though bypassing tech that's 100+ years old... But if the power company says "well - you have to have this to get power from us" - then that just moves me one step closer to going off-grid.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

Even if some people need a nanny, they don't need a greedy, amoral nanny motivated entirely by perceived short term profits.