Dear Friends,
It seems to me, a natural wariness of danger is normal, but when it becomes all encompassing it becomes pathologically neurotic. We have speed limits to mitigate the danger of driving, but we allow driving, even though it is very dangerous. To eliminate all danger is to cease living a human life and instead ossifying to something less. We need some danger and we need safety, the question then becomes, what is the correct level of danger we should accept? That level of danger is the zone of proximate development. There must be enough safety that few are harmed but real danger else no one will advance. This is one fundamental problem I have with the welfare state mindset. It seeks to eliminate all danger and mitigate the consequences of bad behavior.
The nanny state protects and coddles us so we never need grow up. In a nanny state, the people are children, who need to be fed, clothed and housed. Such people are incapable of living on their own. Should the nanny state collapse, they would be unable to fend for themselves, and many more would die than is necessary, under such circumstances. In a state where the people are encouraged to grow up, face real danger and over come obstacles, if there is a collapse, they are mature enough to come together and overcome, rather than splinter and go under. Leaders, no matter their intent, do no favors to the people when they create a nanny state. In reality, they do the people a great disservice, in that the nanny state steals from those it is supposed to serve.
A greater theft cannot be committed than the theft of one’s potential. Take away the potential of Tesla and we might still not have AC lights or three phase motors. How many Tesla’s do you suppose the nanny state has stolen from us? By stealing potential from possible luminaries, the nanny state steals from everyone and the future. For the same reason there are signs in national parks, “Do Not Feed the Bears,” because it makes them dependent…they never develop. What is the just punishment for erasing the polio vaccine? How many times has that been done… we will never know the breakthroughs we might have had. Because the state sought to take away all danger and mitigate the consequences of bad behavior, thus infantilizing the people.
The nanny state is neurotic. We can deduce that a neurotic state is run by neurotic people. People consumed with safety and eliminating risk. Where the state becomes the all consuming mother. The consequences for the children of such mothers are well known. The same is in store for a people who live under an all consuming nanny state. Robbing the people of their hero’s journey and creating victims, prey animals cowering before an almighty chaos of the unknown. An unknown we never dare explore, because to do so, would endanger the very people the all consuming mother seeks to infantilize. It is a truth that to survive, some wariness is called for, but too much is stifling. The neurotic leaders of the nanny state must face their internal fears, fears they project onto society as a whole.
How safe should society make it for people then? If total safety is out, as is anarchy, what is the optimal state of danger for a society and civilization to grow? At the zone of proximate development. The place where learning is done. That level is the optimal level of safety and danger that the leaders of a nation should aim at. Perhaps we don’t want another Bonny and Clyde, shooting up banks with Browning Automatic Rifles, but we also don’t want the State to follow us around with a pillow. Of the two, the one closer to the zone of proximate development, is the one where a Bonny and Clyde can exist. It is only there where people can actually choose not to be that. Economic, cultural, spiritual, technological and humanistic growth is the result of keeping danger at the zone of proximate development.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
