Hacker News Reader

Comment by headsoup | Hacker News Reader

You don't need a nanny state as a solution. In fact that's bad as it leaves people to believe they don't need to critically think about things because 'nanny' has them covered.

They need better regulation, education (not the systemic industrial kind currently provided) and discussion. Marketplace of ideas and all that.

View on HN

Late to reply but thanks for the comments

The UK at the moment seems to have a bad case of regulation == nanny == bad

Whenever I hear someone saying thing s are over regulated, it means they have a great wheeze to scam someone out of cash if only it was allowed.

I fully believe that education is great and sensible regulation to the benefit of all but my core assumption about designing a society is to have sane defaults

The simplest would be something like SAYE (Save As You Earn) where your employer pushes 10% of your paycheck into a index isa each month from the age of 18.

Basically if you do nothing but accept the default, you arrive at 55 years old with a pension.

(effectively that's what is happening now in UK with pensions)

The defaults for society should leave us with a decent floor - and it's up to us to raise the ceiling.

Call it a nanny state, sensible regulation, or the only way to release a distro

7 billion people are not going to think in a critical way. It didn't happen when we had 1 billion, nor 2, 3... And the difficult is growing. To deal with it is the only reason politics was created.

PS: we are asking the same: better regulation and education (and more boards of discussion) is the foundation of a great state.

Indeed, but is non-critical thinking a default, or the outcome of systems put in place? I.e. Which root cause is being assumed?

I think non-critical thinking for the modern society is the default of the human being, and the critical thinking we have by default might not be always suitable (adrenaline, rage, lies/plots, violence, store calories/overeat, etc).

Both are true, depending on the individual. One one end you'll find people who insist on thinking for themselves no matter their environment. On the other end of the scale you'll find people who never think, even when placed in an environment that encourages them to think. In the middle, were probably most people exist, you find the impressionable people. People who would think for themselves if the environment was conducive for it, but stop thinking for themselves when given the right encouragement. They drink coca cola because they see advertisements for it everywhere, but if those advertisements were banned they might choose to drink something else instead.

That's the way I see it anyway; one big gradient. I don't believe the world is so black or white that the entire population exists on one extreme or the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com