Does Rick Santorum Believe in the Nanny State?

I don’t gamble, unless you count investing in stocks gambling. I visit Las Vegas at least once each year. I’ve never put a penny in a slot machine, played Black Jack, or spun a roulette wheel. I take advantage of inexpensive hotel rooms (Mon. thru Fri.), great food, shopping, and magic shows. The Hoover Dam is a great visit as well as a number of museums.

Don’t forget the pawn shops. The pawn shop is the best friend of gamblers who don’t know when to quit and need enough money for their flight back home. If you ever pass through Las Vegas, be sure to visit the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop, a 24-hour family business operated by the Harrison family, in downtown Las Vegas. You can see them on Pawn Stars on History.com. You can learn a lot of history. Really.

But let’s get back to the gambling. While I don’t gamble, I don’t want to pass laws prohibiting other people for gambling. It’s their money. Just don’t ask me to bail you out if you go broke. During a recent interview with Jon Ralston, Rick Santorum said the following:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment; it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.

This might explain why billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson plans to give another $10 million to Newt Gingrich’s campaign.

It’s Santorum comments in the second paragraph in his above remarks that are the most troubling. This is the way liberals think and get laws passed to take care of us. The following comments from my friend Mark Horne are worth considering:

I think “Nanny Statism” is the right word. Children are supposed to be taken care of by adults. The idea is that some day they will grow up and make their own decisions and bear their own consequences.

But there is a “never never land” view of politics, both on the Left and the Right, that says people are never supposed to grow up. They have to be constrained and watched to protect them from themselves and to protect “society” from negative spillover.

Go to the book of Proverbs and ask if Solomon thought it was in his job description as king to protect fools from their folly by coercing behavior and eliminating the consequences. He seems to think that, if a fool won’t listen to wisdom, then he will become an object lesson for others by the suffering and ruin he brings upon himself.

Instead of a nanny we need a wise teacher who warns us of what will happen to us if we give ourselves up to vice. Ridding society of vice is a program that will rid us of freedom and maturity, but probably leave vice intact.

When will so-called conservatives learn? “The good parent prepares his children for independence, trains them to make responsible decisions, knows that he harms them by not helping them to break loose. The paternal state thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction.”[1]


Notes:
  1. Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, 184. []

Comments

comments

  • joeT

    If you don't pass an Internet Gambling law, Federaly of some sort, then States Rights are trampled in every State and Community around the country that chooses to not allow gambling amongst its community.

    So whats more important here? Legalizing Gambling, everywhere essentially via the Internet.....or the Federal Government protecting States Rights in this area?

    • joeT

      The State of say Georgia, or the town of say Macon, Georgia can not pass a law banning gambling on the internet when the companies are based in places like Las Vegas or off-shore. They could only stop companies based inside of Georgia from doing this. Which is why its a federal issue.

      • MartinRidens

        The only justification a city or state could have for making gambling illegal is for the benefit or to protect other citizens. Gambling halls might raise crime rates, gambling halls could reduce property values, etc. The states have no business outlawing what a person does in the privacy of their own home when there is no possible ill effect except for the gambler and their family.

        If a state did pass a tyrannical law like banning internet gambling knowing full well their citizens would have access through the internet then the burden of enforcement needs to fall on the state to prevent their citizens from that activity. I imagine the totalitarian tactics required would make that state much less populous. Rick Santorum would use those same totalitarian tactics on all of us but we have no where else to go.

  • http://www.chick.com Raymond
  • tom

    This is the United States of America............................and we should have ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, and we do not need the government telling us which and what we should have as freedoms.

    • Keith

      I almost agree. But absolute freedom will not work. I would like to B@#%$ slap all libs but it should NOT be allowed just because it is fundamentally right. It would probably be considered HATE SOMETHING or other istead of common sense as WE KNow it would be!

      • MartinRidens

        It comes down to property rights, as Ron Paul says. Total freedom does not include being able to steal someone else's property or damage their property, like their face.

    • philwynk

      Seriously, you folks are clueless. States have ALWAYS passed laws based on moral considerations. Why do you imagine murder is unlawful? Do you imagine there's some automatic rule that says it's alright to outlaw murder, but not to outlaw other immoral practices? Murder is unlawful because it is immoral -- so immoral that to do it is to undermine the fabric of society. Theft, same. It's against the law because it is immoral.

      So, where's the line between acts that are appropriate to outlaw, and acts that are completely protected by the Constitution? Answer: there is no line, it's entirely up to the legislatures of the states. Entirely. Always has been.

      What creates the nanny state is an attitude -- an attitude that says that the ordinary citizen is not smart enough to make appropriate decisions for him- or herself, but the state is smart enough. When such an attitude takes hold, the legislature stops protecting people from criminal and corrosive behavior, and starts bossing ordinary, non-criminal people around. There is a line between telling criminals what they must not do, and telling ordinary, law-abiding citizens what they must do.

  • http://www.chick.com Raymond

    Rick Santorum's voting record. http://www.issues2000.org/Rick_Santorum.htm

    • Mary

      Thank you so much for the link! Should be read by every voter.

  • tod

    santorums a New World Order Puppet !!! Dr.Ron Paul 2012 !!!

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Paul ignores the morals and ethics that come along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He would allow Federally drugs and many other things that the Founding Fathers would find to be sheer ignorance to have. The proper government of any nation must go along a very thin line of what is controling and what is protective. Obama would give us nothing and Paul would give us everything neither is good. One is immoral and unethical and the other is morally ambivilant both dead ends.

      • MartinRidens

        You confuse federal and state issues. Ron Paul doesn't want to give us anything. He wants the federal government to stop taking things.

        • Jonathan Gartner

          And you are confused on how things work If there is no one rule for certain things the states will come up with separate laws no two being the same. While I am for freedom unregulated laws would open a can of worms nobody would be able to close. For example Cal. would have any thing you could want Heroin, coke ect. Michigan would not having some regulation is important Paul would do away with it along with open border the chaos and anarchy would be unbelievable .

        • MartinRidens

          "Unregulated laws"? What in the world are you talking about? It sounds like you believe the federal government should "regulate" state laws for "certain things". You claim Ron "Paul ignores the morals and ethics that come along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights", but it is clear you have no understanding of what those are.

          Your claim of Ron Paul wanting open borders is ludicrous and you should be ashamed of yourself for making a statement like that in public.

          You also claim to be for freedom. Freedom regulated by the federal government is not freedom at all and you big government types always use words like chaos and anarchy to defend your totalitarian solutions.

  • DubbleM

    In my opinion, it is a personal issue. Take good care of yourself.

  • http://www.chick.com Raymond

    Is Your Food Safe To Eat?
    Let's examine the evidence... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdat...

  • mike88

    People should have the absolute freedoms to enjoy doing anything they want as long as they don't harm or cause hrm to anybody else in what they are doing. No lawmaker should impose or be able to impose his/her moral/ philosophical beliefs on anybody else and make it enfocable by law. the Law is not created as an imposition on our Rights, the law is made as an imposition of violations of oiur Rights by other people including politicians. Ron Paul 2012 the only politrician to restrtict the government from imposing their will on the American people by reducing the size and scope of alleged authority of the Federal Government. If you want a Nanny State, elect anybody but Ron Paul if you want to restore our Freedoms and Liberties elect Ron Paul. It is that simple.

    • Jonathan Gartner

      And allow chaos and anarchy. He is not a Republican nor a Conservative except in fiscal matters. In all else he is as bad or worse than Obama. And I have watched him for 30 years as the example of why libertarianism is a dead end just like marxism.

      • MartinRidens

        Libertarianism is what our country was founded on.

        "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

        No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. " - Thomas Jefferson

        • Jonathan Gartner

          Not quite. This country was founded by a number of people including Mason's who could be considered in that time period as free thinkers. However even these free thinkers where repelled by the illuminati and the chaos and anarchy they brought before they were rooted up and executed. Libertarianism in 1800's is a lot different than today. Obama and Paul are the same coin two different sides make no mistake about it .

        • MartinRidens

          You are full of feces, buddy. Your republicans and Obama are two sides of the same big government coin and it's sad to see how badly they have brainwashed you.

    • jim

      so you believe in abortion as it does not harm a viable human

  • Concepcion Roustan

    Santorum's infamous claim that "the pursuit of happiness is harming America." is an attack on American individualism at its root. It fails to recognize that each man owns his own life and has a right to use it for his own ambitions and goals, his own happiness, so long as he respects the equal right of others to do the same. The State cannot tell me or any other individual that I cannot use birth control nor can the State tell me or any other individual the opposite that I can use birth control. The State has no power against the natural, universal and equal right of any individual, except to protect the free exercise of those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. AS LONG AS THIS IS TRUE THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ARE ABSOLUTE. THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE CONTRARY THERE ARE LIMITS BOTH BY NATURAL LAW AND BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE POWER OF THE STATE TO INFRINGE UPON THOSE RIGHTS. I FOR ONE WILL NOT LET ANY GOVERNMENT TREAD ON ME AND WILL PROTECT MY RIGHT AND THE RIGHT OF MY FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS WITH MY OWN LIFE IF NECESSARY.

  • AlleyOops

    I'm not sure what the message is here? Various Indian tribes have casinos all over the USA and there isn't anything the Feds can do to stop them. The GOP & independent voters have four choices as to whom we think can beat Obama; It is my opinion that Rick Santorum or New Gingrich are the only two running that will be able to stand up to the sure to come attacks by the democrats and their legions.

  • Ann Wilson Kingsley

    Excellent article! Ron Paul for 2012!

    • Ray

      I would be willing to vote for Ron Paul in 2022 if he is still willing to run.

  • Dave

    This is an example of why Santorum is no longer a Senator.

  • Doodlebug

    We SHOULD HAVE FREEDOM WITHOUT ANY STRINGS ATTACHED! However, more and more we are seeing our freedoms taken away from us. Government needs to STAY OUT OF OUR PRIVATE LIFES! You know let us eat what we want and do what we want, let us be responsible for our own life without the government demanding that we do this, that and the other thing or throw us in jail if we don't. It is getting ridiculous especially how this administration wants to dictate our every move!

    • Sane

      Why then are very invasive laws being passed all over America restricting acess to legal abortion. Waiting periods, invasive ultrasounds, counseling forced not offered. These are state laws aimed at being a "nanny" state and being developed and implemented by Reoublicans. This us wrong. Abortion is legal. If y are religiously against this great. Don't have an abortion. Ok for religious people to tell others what to do and gave state enforce. No Bette than liberals they rail about

      • http://yahoo Mark

        You are absolutely wrong. The preamble to our constitution clearly states that it was drawn up to protect "LIFE,LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. What about the word "Life" do you people not understand?

      • Jonathan Gartner

        Hardly the liberals/marxists would give you abortions with out telling you the possible out comes and reality. People in this case should have both sides. Planned Parent Hood is genocide just like Hitler and so is Obama.

    • olinda

      Thaths why i going with santurum,becouse he is pro life,religion,freedom,this goverment is geting in our church,we are free to pick the religion we want,they geting in every thing try to control our life what to do,what to eat,you thing people dont care ,i said open your eyes and see what happens to our country right now,if we dont do something to reverse all the damage this goverment has done we all going to sofer and our babies all are going to be like those people in europe,,they dont have no life,the goverment do every thing for them,thas terrible no be able to work ,be independent,have the job you study for,;we are the republic;

  • 1599

    Well first of all, it isn't right that the Indians have a right to operate gambling joints and noone else. If it is illegal for the rest of us it should be illegal for them too. To set up seperate entities within the nation makes a liar out of the Pledge of Allegiance. You know, the "Indivisible" part.

  • Victoria DeLacy

    Rick Santorum is an honorable man with a stellar record of service in the Senate and, as Rush Limbaugh and at least 90 other conservative leaders from across America attest through having given him their wholehearted support in every way, he is the only true conservative remaining in the race and we need to get behind supporting his candidacy if we really want to see America continue into the next generation. If it goes to RINO Romney of Romneycare fame we will be history since that would hand Obama the last term he needs to complete the total destruction of America as we know it. We dare not let that happen. Santorum for President this November to rescue what by that time remains of our American foundations!

    • Life

      That gives Rick the right to have government "supervise sex following faith based guideline" and "birth control can be outlawed by the state". Only two I can remember out of many. Conservatives are huge hypocrites. No government intervention except my Christian beliefs. Separation of Church and state except to make every pure in Ricks world view. Right up there with the evil Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc. Just different emphasis. Obama has 50% approval rating. Watch your ultra interventionists in my private life.

    • MartinRidens

      Rick Santorum really, really, wants the opportunity to tell people what to do. He is worse than a communist because he wraps his totalitarianism in patriotism.

    • gtx13

      No, is not true ! Rick Santorum is more liberal as Romney and he is completely a pseudo- conservative and a liar ! After so many lies and bla, bla, bla now is time to check his records !

    • six bits

      amen to all you said. Please keep up your comments. There are too many ignoramuses that use this space to vent their airhead e3xpressions

    • six bits

      six bits was replying only to comments by Victoria DeLacy. In reading my comment, I see it was placede after an airhead political expression and not after Ms Lacey's.

    • jhd

      I believe you are right, Victoria.
      It appears that these respondants' concerns are only for themselves, with no thought of what damage can - and if you look at the record - WILL be done to individuals, families, and communities as a result of "total freedom." Total freedom is a lie.
      They are making ridiculous statements about what Santorum - or anyone who's serious about their Christianity - would do as president.
      The Godfather, who likes to quote scripture, should know that the Bible says we ARE free to do whatever BUT to do whatever is not in our best interest.

    • Diana

      Santorum does not have a conservative voting record. He is also weak and his getting the nominatioon would give the election ot O. Romney is not a rino..look at his record as governor of Mass. He wil repeal Obamacare. hopefully Santorum will soon fafe away. He is out of his league in runninf for Pres.

      • Diana

        typos....sorry

  • BJW

    The government does need to protect society from the evils of this society. Gay marriage, abortion, internet gambling are some things the government does need to regulate. You can go to Nevada or in WA. we have big Indian Nations casinos, or you could go to a horse or dog racing track. No one wants to keep you from wasting your money but it should not be available readily online. Teens can get on there and swear they are 21 and there is no way to check their validity. If you ever have the opportunity to watch "The Truth Project" that was done by Focus on the Family there are a couple of sessions that explains the role of government and the role of the church in government. If you look at how the great empires in history collapsed it almost always started with corruption and immorality. You need rules to limit things like pornography. If we have comlete freedom then a person can go watch hard core pornography in a public library. Then any one near them including children are exposed to pornography. If we can not do anything about morality pretty soon the whole culture will be in the sewer along with more crime. Morality keeps a civilization from chaos.

  • M. Carlson

    Ayatollah Santorum believes on his nanny syate,Sharia LAw for women. He wants to outlaw burth control, take away all reproductive choices for women.

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Never heard him saying anything against birth control except unless you consider abortion birth control. Personal choices must have Personal Responsibility abortion is a negative result period.

      • plainscary

        Well Said!

  • jaxum

    This article states that the individual is the one who suffers from his/her foolishness. This is not necessarily true; many times there is a family that suffers even more because the gambler runs them into bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Absolutely and at that point they become a burden to others through welfare. That is why I was opposed to having gambling in Detroit. It feeds off the poor and despartate people.

    • chuckgold

      Yes, and also it drives gambling addicts to theft. So many articles about a trusted book keeper, or other long term employee, who has absconded with company funds, or organization funds, to try and regain ill afforded losses. There is a large hidden cost to society from gambling addiction.

  • A_Nobody

    Hey Santorum if you're that ignorant of the constutution, you're no better than Obozo. The Bill of Rights was created to stop clowns like you.

  • Mickey

    Santorum is a jerk.....Just bec ause he doesn't likesomething he thinks it should be changed...Sorry fella...!!
    I do think he wants the Gov..too much into our business....Well get out and stay out......We love our freedom in this
    country....and will keep it...thank you.....

  • Robert Lebischak

    Another reason to not vote for Rick.

  • Chad

    His smirk, the way he looks down his nose at others and, his I'm smarter than you and going to tell you what to do attitutude.. is a big tip-off to a man I don't want around...Nothing but bad mojo vibescoming from this man.

  • BobR

    As a scientist I believe religion and politics should not mix. Shariah law is an example of religion run amok and Islam is inhuman. It
    is a cleverly designed scheme to conquer the world and Christian countries are easy pickings because we believe in freedom of religion and they do not. If we allow them to practice their so called religion In America we are doomed. When they attain a majority they will kill all Christians who do not convert to Islam. We must elect a President with the balls to stop this termite infection NOW!
    ALSO, we must get this illegally elected Muslim out of our top office, sooner the better.

  • John

    I live in Colorado, where we passed gambling a quit a few years back. I voted for it then but would be dollars ahead if it would not have been passed. Even though I helped build the gambling areas at the time. I'm way behind in Colorado, but $6,000.00 ahead of Vegas. Been to Vegas one time. Not going back. It takes some of us a while to realize that in the long run we will lose.

    • plainscary

      You don't have to gamble. No one is forcing your hand to grab your wallet to put money in the machines.

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    I don't think so,`

  • Leon Ewers

    You will be asimulated in to the collective, resistants is futile.

  • TheGizmo51

    Who cares?

  • six bits

    My gosh, none of the above detractions bear legitimate merit. Talk about generic! I suspect a roster of entitlement liberals descended here and left their droppings. I for one am FOR SANTORUM. I apreciate his honesty, his integrity and moral character.....something which has been missing for 3/4 of the presidency.

  • RICK ZIMMERMANN

    MY FELLOW AMERICANS: This Clown Santorum is actuallyu running for Our President.!! HEY RICK,OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS ARE ABSOLUTE" YOU TWIT. Government and it's clones need to stay the Hell out of Our Business with all it's foolish laws.

  • josecanyousee

    Rick Santorum does not believe in a "nanny state" anymore more than you, Godfather. The real problem is that our nation is already about 75% nanny state and any resemblance to the founding fathers American culture is coincidental. From the interstate commerce clause to social security to the federal reserve to lifetime judge-ships to welfare, this nation is not the Christian nation that the founders deemed absolutely necessary for survival of true freedom. Even the so-called moderate believers like Franklin and Jefferson would be considered Bible thumping fanatics nowadays, much less the 37 pastors that signed the Constitution. Did you know that during his presidency, Jefferson ordered every classroom to teach the Bible and sing from Watts hymnal? That doesn't sound like absolute freedom.

  • Jerry

    In 2006, Rick Santorum, less than two months before suffering one of the worst losses in Senate history, was named one of three “most corrupt” Senators by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

  • gerri randall

    3/4 of Washington politics should be left up to the States and Local government. Washington take care of the Union and our shores. Ron Paul is the man for President. It shouldn't be about money or organizations should be out of it. Voters need to step up to polls and then their and their's alone should vote for the right man. Voter fraud and politics should not be allowed.

  • josecanyousee

    CREW is a leftist hit group funded by George Soros. (You know, the guy who wants to legalize heroin! Now that's freedom.) All three of titles,CREW, Citizens for Responsibility, and Ethics in Washington are just one hit group-CREW. The allegations in 2006 came to nothing, but were released just in time to affect the re-election of Mr. Santorum. CREW also filed lawsuits against pastors in PA for supporting Mr. Santorum. Those meany pastors are at it again! The Conservative Forum labeled the CREW allegations as an establishment hit piece. The Conservative Forum has just the opposite list of the ten most corrupt political officials, including Eric Holder and Barak Obama.

  • sam41

    whats wrong with people. Santorum is last best hope for america. Please vote and vote against Obama in NOV

  • David in MA

    Santorium has cast some questionable votes....
    If we cannot go with Gingrich, we must go with Ron Paul.
    But under no circumstance go with obozo.

  • spelunker7

    Senator Santorum voted to raise the debt limit, increase taxes, double the size of the Education Dept, millions for Planned Parenthood, many social programs, supported Fannie and Freddie, voted against Right to Wok Act, and favoed gun control. Does that mean he favors the Nanny State? Don't know, but it does mean he is NOT a conservative. He was soundly defeated at the polls, because of various ethics violations and his liberal voting record. See his record in the Congressional Record.

    • josecanyousee

      After checking again for Senator Santorum's voting record, two things should be said 1) He is still by far the most conservative of our present choices 2) Much of what you cite as a liberal voting record is simply out of context and therefore untrue. Admittedly, it is difficult to find the Senators true voting record without the "legal-eze" which no one can understand anyway, but just look at who supports him and what his liberal enemies think of him! 100% approval from the US Chamber of Congress and the Christian Coalition. The tea party approves of him though the media would like to see conflict there. 0% approval by NARAL. Ronald Reagan passed the Brady Bill, Senator Santorum voted no (to the recent handgun version). Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling exponentially and was rather weak on abortion. Senator Santorum has done much better. In context and under closer examination, Rick Santorum is the conservative choice.

      • spelunker7

        Santorum's voting record is in the Congressional Record along with everyone else. So, it is not out of context. He voted 5 times to increase the debt limit, voted to raise taxes on oil andgas, voted against the Right to Work Act, voted to expand the Dept of Education, millions for Planned Parenthood, and favors gun control. Conservatives don't vote for these kinds of social programs. How much evidence do you need? He also had some serious ethics violations.

  • Diana

    Even though all of this is true many still insist Santorum is a conservative. I have been a conservative my whole life and Santorum is no Conservative. His being unable to get reelected for a 3rd term is further evidence that he would be a very weak presidential candidate.

  • J3player

    With freedom comes responsibly. Will both sides of gambling be taught our kids or only the glitter and fun of the internet? Would one use his freedom to leave a loaded gun in the presence of a five year old? It's time for us to look at the impact of what we do on our kids. I agree with Santorum, if you want to gamble go to a casino and not make it loaded gun for kids to have access.

  • josecanyousee

    You submit speculation, not evidence. There are always circumstances surrounding political decisions, and everyone always places their own political spin on it. The NRA supports Senator Santorum 100%. He voted against the present Brady bill of 2006, yet Ronald Reagan championed the original bill. So who's the conservative and under what circumstances were these decisions made? Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling more than any previous president, yet the economy also grew more than at any other time in history. I could go down your list of speculations. On the surface they look devastating. Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra, but Senator Santorum and pastors that supported him had ETHICS CHARGES, NOT VIOLATIONS, ALL OF WHICH CAME TO NAUGHT. Those charges were pushed by CREW, an ultra-liberal hit group backed by George Soros. But I would still call both Ronald Reagan and Senator Santorum some of the most ethical politicians of our time. Since you apparently dislike Senator Santorum, be honest and admit it.