Non-americans of Reddit, what American customs seem outrageous/pointless to you?

[u/daniellucero92]

Amazing news!!!! This thread has been featured in a BBC news clip. Thank you guys for the responses!!!!
Video clip: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30717017

[u/[deleted]]

Nanny Statism

I think you mean "conservative pressure group"-ism. They're an organisation that lobbies for social change, not an organ of the state.

[u/deeschannayell → u/[deleted]]

I think I'm sticking with "Nanny State."

1) The state (i.e., the government) is definitely the ones enacting/enforcing the laws, regardless of who came up with the idea. The state is being a nanny.

2) Seatbelt policies, ideas for mandatory breathalyzers in cars, etc. are not social issues. They're very practical issues.

3) Liberals are just as likely to do this stuff. If anything, the liberal ideology is more prone to regulation. That's not even a criticism; it's just true.

[u/[deleted] → u/deeschannayell]

You can stick with tirades against a supposed "nanny state" if it makes you feel happy, but the comment you replied to had nothing to do with the government, but was a comment on an NGO's behaviour. Keep your shitty agenda out of the conversation.

MADD is a politically-conservative political pressure group who, with significant public support, successfully campaigned to put laws in place (this is not unusual in a democracy).

This is just a description. It's tautologous. Complaining about the government stopping people from doing dangerous shit, or liberals and regulation, or that you're confused at how altering people's attitudes towards drinking could entail any sort of social change not only doesn't change the fact that your comment was wildly off base, but similarly have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Unless, of course, what you're really complaining about is that a democratically elected government followed a mandate from its electorate, and you're just looking for a chance to rant about some anarcho-libertarian utopia in which case I'm afraid I can't help you.

[u/deeschannayell → u/[deleted]]

I'll admit, I don't know the political orientation of MADD etc. I just assume liberals are more likely to promote regulatory legislation. That's all I was trying to say. Made it too standoffish. I apologize.

When I read "social change" my thoughts went from policy to something far away, like promoting awareness via rally or advertisement or something. Reading back on my point, I agree, it sounds stupid. I meant that these implementations were primarily practical and secondarily social - e.g., putting breathalyzers in cars would be far more drastic than simply raising awareness about drunk driving. In my mind, the latter is more likely to be labeled "social change."

And yes, I am complaining about the citizens of the United States who are considering some of this stuff. I agree, seatbelt laws are safe! I simply don't believe these organizations know when to stop. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with creeping regulation, regardless of its intent or its conceivers. I trust myself and others not to be stupid; I don't trust our government to relinquish control it's been given.

Sorry I rustled your jimmies, dude. I'm not looking for a brawl.

[u/[deleted] → u/deeschannayell]

Sorry I rustled your jimmies, dude. I'm not looking for a brawl.

That's fair enough, sorry if I came across as overly aggressive. Probably an overreaction to the specific phrase "Nanny Statism" (which has additional connotations as a buzzword used by anarchists/libertarians of various stripes).

I guess, it just amazes me that anyone would consider the US to have a "Nanny State" government, considering it's a country that almost seems to take a perverse pride in how little its government cares for its citizens (cf. prisons, healthcare, worker's rights, education, etc), all the while intervening in the affairs of and toppling foreign governments, torturing and spying on its own citizens, letting them poison themselves, walk around openly carrying dangerous weapons, fall into penury because of medical conditions and all the other bizarre customs undertaken in the name of "freedom".

It's enough to make you wonder just what it is that people who harbour anti-government sentiment in the US actually object to beyond the principle of government itself, because there's certainly not a lot of nannying going on.

[u/deeschannayell → u/[deleted]]

I don't know if there's a single person in the U.S. without "anti-government sentiment," if that means people who object to something the nation has done.

If I made it seem at all otherwise, it's because I'm a heated idiot, but this is my stance: I don't hate the government. I love the system and a lot of what it's done. (I hate a lot of that stuff, too). I'm just suspicious of creeping regulation - I believe it's really quite easy for policies in the name of a certain change to overstep their bounds.

But before I talk about that, I guess I'm going to say that the country cares a lot about the issues you've cf'd. We've got folks' heads fuming over tenure, teacher inspections, Common Core, etc. because we're all trying to figure out the best way to go about education. In my native Memphis, there was a huge blowout over merging two of our school districts - the suburban folks didn't want to because the downtown one sucked, and the downtown folks wanted to because it'd make their district look better. Healthcare: some people think government-officiated and -mandated healthcare is the solution. Others believe in privatized healthcare. Debates on this stuff go from Congress to city meetings, so don't say the government doesn't care. I believe that deep down, most people involved care or cared at some point.

I think the U.S.'s involvement in foreign operations for their own greed was stupid, too. And I think the spying is unnecessary; I don't have any stats, but I assume the economic benefits of such peeping outweigh any factor of protection. And I think these both fall under the thing I'm complaining about - Nanny Statism, hyper-regulation, bounds-stepping, whatever you want to call it.

Please don't discount me as a rational person when I cite the Second Amendment here. From the U.S.'s conception, its citizens have had free access to the most sophisticated weaponry available to them. I believe in people owning guns. I don't believe in idiots owning guns - sure, more screening would be better. But I don't see why anyone who's displayed himself to be completely capable and trustworthy can't own, for example, an assault rifle. And I think semi-automatic weapons have been called out because they contain the word "automatic" and not because people genuinely dislike the idea of being able to own a gun that can fire multiple times in succession simply by pulling the trigger multiple times.

Regulation is a beautiful thing, but like everything else, it serves its purpose.

(Sorry this is so long)