ISSUE IDEA: Mummy @@NAME@@, please hold my hand

[Australian rePublic]

I'm sure my fellow Australians and Singaporeans can relate...

[title] Mummy @@NAME@@, please hold my hand


[validity] low personal freedoms

[desc] A recent Blackacrean mockumentry about @@NAME@@ being an over-legislated nanny state has gone viral globally and brought the issue of over-legislation to your office

[option] "It's bloody ridiculous it is!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, who had his plastic sword confiscated before entering. "Yesterday, I tried to do a  kalamatiano on the roof of @@CAPITAL@@ Tower and was told it was too dangerous, and the day before that, I was told I can't take my plastic sword to a concert! Enough with this bloody overlegislation!"

[effect] residents complain about over-legislation whenever a local government fences a river

[option] "I don't believe that our laws are over-zealous" comments beaurocrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, who took a break from drafting a law preventing plugging in electrical devices without wearing rubber gloves. "These laws are necessary in order to keep our citizens safe from themselves, and prevent them from doing all those, for lack of a better word, stupid things that could get them killed. Now if you'll excuse me... did that man just eat a whole, uncut apple? We can't allow that, what if chokes on the seed?"

[effect] "It's banned" has become the nation's unofficial motto

[option] "Why don't we just educate our residents about the safe use of everything?" questions @@RNADOMNAME@@, the Dean of @@ANIMAL@@ City, offering you an empty brown paper bag whilst winking, "We can provide them with a basic electricity coarse to allow them to do their own electrical work, we can provide them with a basic OH&S cause to teach them not to fall off cliffs, and, well you get the idea. I think you should consider it!"

[effect] the nation's 25 years olds are getting ready to transition from elementary school to high school

[Australian rePublic]

No comments, ha? Is it really that bad?

[Suvadive Republic]

No comments, ha? Is it really that bad?

I will comment. As to not let your self esteem down.
I do not know much about this and I am no help. But hey, I got you your first comment.

[Australian rePublic]

No comments, ha? Is it really that bad?

I will comment. As to not let your self esteem down.
I do not know much about this and I am no help. But hey, I got you your first comment.

[Trotterdam]

I think it's too generic. You're complaining about some vague "over-legislation" rather than any specific laws that people are upset about.

Also, not every nation with low civil rights is a "nanny state" that seeks to protect citizens from themselves. Some are conservative states trying to enforce their idea of morality on everyone. Some are tyrannies who only care to exploit the masses for the leader's benefit.

[Black Flag Syndicate]

I think it's too generic. You're complaining about some vague "over-legislation" rather than any specific laws that people are upset about.

Also, not every nation with low civil rights is a "nanny state" that seeks to protect citizens from themselves. Some are conservative states trying to enforce their idea of morality on everyone. Some are tyrannies who only care to exploit the masses for the leader's benefit.

Then perhaps the validity could large government with high safety? Maybe it could be changed from "over-legislation" to something like "becoming too soft"?

[Australian rePublic]

I think it's too generic. You're complaining about some vague "over-legislation" rather than any specific laws that people are upset about.

Thanks for the feedback, but that's kind of the nature of a nanny-state. There aren't any specific nanny state laws, with few exceptions. In order to qualify as a nanny state, you kind of have to ridiculous levels of over-legislation across the board, into all facets of life. Althoiugh, if you think I should focus on some specific laws, I will do so

Also, not every nation with low civil rights is a "nanny state" that seeks to protect citizens from themselves. Some are conservative states trying to enforce their idea of morality on everyone. Some are tyrannies who only care to exploit the masses for the leader's benefit.

Yea, good point, thanks. I just didn't know which other measure to use

I think it's too generic. You're complaining about some vague "over-legislation" rather than any specific laws that people are upset about.

Also, not every nation with low civil rights is a "nanny state" that seeks to protect citizens from themselves. Some are conservative states trying to enforce their idea of morality on everyone. Some are tyrannies who only care to exploit the masses for the leader's benefit.

Then perhaps the validity could large government with high safety? Maybe it could be changed from "over-legislation" to something like "becoming too soft"?

Cheers, thanks. I'll work on the next draft later

[Trotterdam]

In order to qualify as a nanny state, you kind of have to ridiculous levels of over-legislation across the board, into all facets of life.

Personally, I feel that any given law is either reasonable or not reasonable. It makes no sense to say "it's fair if the government bans plastic swords at concerts without banning eating uncut apples, and it's fair if the government bans eating uncut apples without banning plastic swords at concerts, but it's crossing the line if the government bans both plastic swords at concerts and eating uncut apples" (to take the examples from your draft).

Sure, in practice, governments that feel they have the right to ban one dangerous thing are also more likely to want to ban other dangerous things as well, but it was the first ban that was the most important because it set the precedent for future legislation.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I concur with Trotterdam's first comment. It's too broad and generic.