6 ms·

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".

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".