It's interesting, and it should be encouraging, to know that there is a Senate enquiry into the nanny state, which Australia surely is. But, I am not particularly encouraged because I can see little coming of it.

Nanny states arise only when citizens allow them; and it seems that Australian citizens have actually encouraged the nanny state by wanting more from government than is healthy: they are like spoiled children, bribed by 'nanny' - the government - to behave, and when they do behave, nanny rewards them. Slavery is the next step.

I would not agree with some of what David says. A persons obesity is a health issue, and if that persons condition effects the whole community as to costs relating to obesity problems, it does need to be regulated.

Some people need to be protected from themselves. If is going to effect someone else, well that means we need regulation to protect the other persons.

Some people see building code regulations as over the top. But not to a prospective buyer.

I can’t think of a regulation I would like to see backed out.
You expect health regulations to be a requirement of food.

David Leyonhjelm has an illusion common to those with his ideology. Libertarians have the illusion that we are rational individuals living in a world where our choice is solely a product of a reasonable determination of existing alternatives. Obesity is an example.

Contrary to what David Leyonhjelm writes it is an epidemic. He denies it is an epidemic since he writes that it is not catching. My dictionary contains as definitions of epidemic:

1. Affecting many persons at once.

2. An outbreak of or product of sudden rapid spread, growth or development.

The above definitions say nothing about whether the transmission of an epidemic is by an infectious agent. Our individual lifestyle choice is affected by many factors of which we are ignorant. Advertising affects us at a subliminal level. Manufacturers lace food products with unhealthy quantities of sugar or fat. It makes food taste better, but it also produces obesity. To help us make better choices in the food market the nanny state requires a manufacturer of food products to label their products with the content of different ingredients. Not all consumers are sophisticated enough or take the time to check the ingredients. Therefore the nanny state sponsors programs to educate the consumer, monitors the manufacture of food products and regulates advertising to prevent it from being misleading.

Corporations do not like the above activities of the nanny state since it might interfere with profit.

http://ausenterprise.com.au/index.htm is the website of the Australian Enterprise Institute.

On the website is this statement:

“Sharing our knowledge and experiences

Via both fee-based and pro-bono consultative service, we assist business organisations and other community groups to improve their condition and exceed their goals.”

The goal of business is to make money. One way of making money is to prevent legislation which would interfere with profits. One way to prevent legislation which would interfere with profits is to support politicians like David Leyonhjelm.

The article was first published in the Australian Financial Review. That’s not surprising.

Doog,

I'm sure you mean well, but your statement that "Some people need to be protected from themselves" is what the nanny state is all about. Only children and certified idiots need protection from themselves.

You are right about the cost of obesity to the community. But, without the nanny state the cost would evaporate. The much preferred liberal state would say: as long as your actions do not harm others, do as you wish, But, take RESPONSIBILITY for any adverse results of your choices, because most people - who make the right choices - cannot and will not take responsibility for YOUR mistakes.

Ttbn How do you separate some people from others. How can you have freedom to do what you want without effecting someone else.

How do you get obesity costs to evaporate. I presume by saying Not liable for your mistakes means personal litigation.

I need an example of your type of freedom.

Doog,

People 'separate' themselves by their actions. You can't 'personally litigate' because you eat yourself into ill-health. The costs of obesity evaporate because the state doesn't pay for the results of your poor choices: you pay for your own foolishness or you die.