Wednesday, April 15, 2009

It's Not "Nannying" When The Private Sector Does It!

So, let me get this straight: When the government creates a rule or spends money to promote public health, it's symptomatic of the "nannying" state (or, for some, the "bullying" state), but when a private company charges extra for its services based on your size (whether you can control it or not), it's just good business? Seems to me that if behavior is "nannying" or "bullying," it shouldn't matter whether the mailed fist comes from the private or the public sector. On the other hand (no pun intended), more often than not, government action is designed to prevent the problem, while business is often in the position of only being able to react to it. And government can be voted in or out every two to four years, while businesses can go on and on for years before their bad behavior catches up with them.

Unless, of course, society decides that business = virtue and government = vice, and government no longer has the support of the people to be proactive. And the bad behavior of business can go on and on for decades, because we've put effectively put handcuffs on the police and bought tickets to the burglars' ball.

But that wouldn't describe any society any of us know, right? Right? Um, I thought so!

No comments: