I enjeoyed this column by Tasha Kheiriddin in the National Post. Critics of Big Government, or as they prefer, the Nanny-State say that it results in an infantilized citezenry (that's not a bug, it's a feature). But if there is one thing that is clear from the latest Budget is that the Nanny-State is not going away any time soon.
Ms. Kheiriddin introduces the term "soft paternalism".
...Rather than forcing choices on its citizens (banning junk food in school cafeterias), governments induce them to make the choices it deems beneficial (offering a cheaper lunch which happens to be healthier). Instead of an overt nanny state, you get an almost-invisible hand pointing the way. Certainly not what Adam Smith had in mind, and bound to make many libertarians cringe -- but still, in the end, a choice. And definitely preferable to the alternative of outright coercion or criminal prohibition (smoking bans) and the high costs associated with such measures.
If it is true that the Nanny-State turns citizens into children (I will leave that to you in the comments) then you could argue that this budget allows the children to age, if ever so slightly. You could say the training wheels have come off but there is still a parent behind the bike with their hand on the seat - if only to make sure. Will we be able to one day ride free? Not if the Conservatives keep growing expenditures faster than growth+inflation. But you can't expect the world in a minority budget.
Comments (9)
There is nothing at all “soft” about this government. This is the Daddy State. Next down the pipe is the “Stay Away From My Daughter Act”.
Posted by Anonymous | May 3, 2006 9:34 AM
Posted on May 3, 2006 09:34
Change away from the idea of the state as parent unfortunately has to be slow, for political reasons. People could do without it, but in a democracy they don’t have to, and they won’t be going cold turkey of their own free will after 50 years of babying. Sadly, if the nanny state is to be dismantled, it’s going to be an ever so tortuous process. I think we may be at least facing the right direction now, if not moving.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | May 3, 2006 10:42 AM
Posted on May 3, 2006 10:42
You see a nanny-state but I see federal meat inspectors who insure our food supply is not tainted with mad cow disease. I see workplace safety inspectors who insure that our workplace is safe. I see health inspectors who insure that our restaraunts are safe to eat at. Are you against all these things?
As for turning us into children, that’s exactly what Tasha and her parasitic ilk are doing. They don’t want us to think like adults, they want us to repeat silly slogans like nanny-state and soft paternalism; phrases that are meaningless.
Posted by Robert McClelland | May 3, 2006 2:03 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 14:03
Clearly I was advocating the complete deconstruction of the state.
Willfully selling tainted food is an act of criminal negligence and fraud. The state arguably therefore has an interest in acting to prevent it.
Common law rules with respect to negligence are adequate, if properly enforced by the courts, to mitigate workplace hazards. Again, though, I wouldn’t necessarily object to a basic inspection regime. But I’m a bad libertarian. Shall I light a match under your straw man, or will you be removing him yourself?
These are not mine, but I do like them:
When given a public policy problem, the solution that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.
http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/neolibertarianism.aspx
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | May 3, 2006 2:30 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 14:30
Help! I’m being weaned! Somebody call a Liberal!
Posted by potato | May 3, 2006 4:33 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 16:33
You see several variations on protecting people from the irresponsibility or downright criminality of others. There is always a just role for the state to play in the safeguarding of fundamental liberties.
The nanny state is when the state protects you from yourself or decides what you should consume - smoking bans, helmet laws, fine arts funding.
Posted by Anonymous | May 3, 2006 4:35 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 16:35
The nanny state is when the state protects you from yourself
Isn’t it time rubes like you found a new hobby? Waah, the nanny gubmint says I have to wear a seatbelt. Waaah, the nanny gubmint says my kid has to wear a full facemask when playing hockey. Waaaah, the nanny gubmint says I have to wear a lifevest when boating. Waah, waah, waah.
Posted by Robert McClelland | May 3, 2006 10:39 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 22:39
The nanny gubmint says we will need more jails because my wife and I don’t use institutionalized daycare, waaaah
Posted by Greg Staples | May 4, 2006 4:03 PM
Posted on May 4, 2006 16:03
Finally, in my Try This at Home mailbag, I listen to one man’s defense for why marijuana is the best sex drug of all time. Conflicting testimonies, anyone?
Posted by ionamin | May 15, 2006 10:05 AM
Posted on May 15, 2006 10:05