Question about Texans who don't want big government or "nanny state" (Howe: home, schools)

[radiodude84]

This is serious, not trying to start a fight.

I notice there is a fair amount of anti-government rhetoric from Texans on this forum and in real life. In the Texas vs. California threads people always worry about Texas becoming a "nanny state" like California, telling people what to do with their bodies etc.

But it seems like most Texans do want to control what other people do. 75% of the state voted to ban gay marriage - if Texas is anti big government, why would this be? We had to have sodomy laws overturned by the supreme court, and our state banned sex toys until a court struck it down. How is that not a nanny state? Also, there's not a lot of support for decriminalizing marijuana - again, how are harsh drug laws not big government telling people what to do with their own bodies? Didn't the board of education just pass a measure that would require religious teaching in schools - small government philosophy would say leave religious teaching to parents. Texas positively seems to want to micromangage people's personal moral lives!

Please **do not make this about hypocrisy in other states** I realize people in other states espouse "freedom" ideals yet are hypocritical with gun rights or free speech or whatever. Let's talk about Texas, not other places. Everybody already knows there are hypocrites everywhere.

It's possible that people on this forum are not a representative sample of all Texans, and the people here are across-the-board small government. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this. But I don't think there's any denying that Texans in real life do not subscribe to a libertarian political ideal. Or am I just wrong in my observations?

[joejitsu]

Actually Texas is more progressive than you think. Recently a Texas judge ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and Texas is easing back on zero tolerance laws.

[EasilyAmused]

Why should the government be involved in what constitutes a "marriage," and force people to accept what others think is a "marriage."

Yes...government should be out of people's private lives.

[Bulldawg82]

I agree that government should not be dictating what constitutes a marriage. The only reason they do is for tax purposes. The less government we have, the better.

[TexasHorseLady]

Agreed. Government should not be involved in the definition of marriage, or of what constitutes a religion (except for the definitions necessary for taxation purposes), nor whether or not people smoke and where, or any number of other things that some people want the government to tell other people they can or cannot do.

The government can, for example, require that cigarettes be produced in a manner that does not involve, say, putting something other than tobacco in them without proper labeling, but it shouldn't dictate where or what people can smoke. Nor should it be passing laws regarding any number of other things that are personal decisions.

It can have rules and regulations regarding civil marriage as applies to taxation purposes, but it shouldn't define who can and cannot be married - that's a religious issue.

Schools should not be promoting ANY religion, and religious theories of creation do not qualify as science.

Pretty much, government should do the basics that it was designed for, the pooling of resources to make such things as infrastructure more affordable and possible, the passing of regulations regarding the production of items that we put in our mouths, but not whether or not we can do so - those decisions should be left to us as adults to make for ourselves - traffic laws and such so that we're all on the same page when we come to an intersection, say, or go driving down the road. But anything that smells like the regulation of our private lives based on the preferences of one group over another (smoking, sexual preferences, etc.) - no.

[TexasNick]

In my view, I think we should let individual states do what they want to do. If California wants to legalize pot, then by all means do it. Once you start having the federal government telling us what to do, then you have problems.

[TexasHorseLady]

I agree, up to the point that the state government starts regulating people's private lives. In that situation, it is just as wrong for the state government to do it as it is for the federal government to do so.

[stillkit]

I'm an ardent libertarian myself and despise the idea of government forcing me, or anyone else, to do what's "best" for us.

However, I'm also a realist who believes that bus has already left the station. There are simply too many people who WANT to be protected from every possible adverse situation and those like me are definitely in the minority.

Yeah, there's a lot of loose talk about it, but let a proposition come up to further curtail public smoking, raise taxes on sugary drinks, take "junk food" out of schools or ban texting or cell phone use while driving (especially in school zones) and just watch how fast that support for liberty evaporates. It'll be gone faster than the morning fog as the majority of people will speak out in support of such nanny-state laws, even while decrying the advancing intrusiveness of government.

[doctorjef]

What, if anything, do you folks believe to be the proper role and functions of the federal government (which is your elected government, established by the Constitution and subsequent law and constitutional processes)?

[hoffdano]

People on the left and the right want to tell people what to do. Texans do it and so do Californians and so do people from Massachusetts. So the nanny state idea is mistakenly attributed to one group or another. Yet they all want to implement their idea of what the government should control.

The OP picked some examples that put Texas in the nanny state category. But it would be easy to pick opposite examples.

How about gun ownership?

How about home schooling?

Taxation (the biggest of all)?