"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money." Steven Chu on justifying forcing American consumers to convert to environmentally friendly lightbulbs.
That comment packs a lot of nanny-state punch.
***
The above quote reminds me of something I discovered during the inspection of my daycare - of which I was cited for not displaying my original permit on the wall (as opposed to keeping it seperate in a file as I chose to. Yes, because spending and wasting three hours of my time nitpicking on administrative paper work was going to improve my service). One of the laws the state enforces in daycares is the one where all cleaners (Mr. Clean and the like) must be under lock and key at all times. Aside from being a logical and prudent action, I don't have a problem with it.
The problem I have is philosophical and empirical. We tend to assume the laws on the books are rooted in some empirical study by a team of professional experts and bureaucrats. They are presumed to know more than, well, say parents and daycares. No questions asked.
If you challenge this dare you be deemed an "extremist." After all, it's meant to protect us all, right?
Well, easy there. I get the Spidey, spiney, tingly feeling it's more about protecting jobs than anything.
What makes me think this?
When I asked if there were studies statistically showing children were guzzling down Pine Sol as a result of neglectful daycare operators and/or parents, the inspector responded no study exists. It was merely a "preventative" measure. Classic "well-meaning" over stretch.
Think about that.
I'm going to pour myself a glass of pear juice.
***
The "light bulb" symbol has become synonymous with a sudden burst of energy, imagination and ideas.
Ironic that it would be the object of paternalistic bureaucratism, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.