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.

5 Fundamental freedoms
All Australians are entitled to freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, and movement.

What is a nanny state.
Excessive public health and safety regulations, private and personal behavior.
A government that tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live their lives, especially about eating, smoking, or drinking alcohol:

Libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm has launched a broad-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the burgeoning “nanny state”, declaring war on laws and regulations that prevent Australians having fun at their own risk.

Seatbelts, helmets, Tobacco, alcohol,
I can not see this enquiry going anywhere, you can not loosen regulation on any of these things without affecting the community, and costing money.

Some overseas places do not have the protective laws that we have, but they also do not have the services that go and scrape up when they come unstuck. That job is for your family to do if they want to. [ that is a big difference ]

From experience I have been in Bangkok on a long week end, when they had 300 road deaths of people trying to escape the city for the weekend. [ no one takes any notice because they think that is normal. ]

The author reckons laws should not be made when the costs to the individual are born solely by her/him. But no matter what an individual does, especially one who is part of a couple, and even more so if there are dependent children, the decisions will affect others. There are very few cases where no one else is affected. As for <<those who harm themselves as a result of poor choices cause the rest of us to pay more via our socialised health system. That is true, but it does not need to be the case; some countries have health systems where the costs are covered via insurance with premiums adjusted according to risk factors.>> I shudder to think that anyone with the power to make laws even dreams of following the example of countries such as the USA where insurance companies decide who gets even primary health care.

Regulation isn't all bad.

Just saw a story about the rise in type 2 diabetes in Australia.
Type 2 diabetes is a highly preventable disease. In 95% of cases it is caused by overeating and lack of exercise.
It can be managed in many cases by diet and exercise.
Type 2 diabetes used to be rare a few decades ago. What has changed?

It now costs the health system $14 Billion each year
70 people lose limbs to complications from diabetes each week
1/4-1/3 of hospital beds are filled with people being treated for diabetes or complications from diabetes.

I would suggest this is one case where government intervention would be helpful to make it easier for people to make the necessary changes to diet and exercise.

It isn't all about willpower and rational decision making. One aspect that would be easy to attack is advertising - it worked with cigarettes, why not ban junk food and drink advertising?

Advertising's goal is to work around our rationality, it goes to work on our subconscious. That is the beauty of it. Advertisers associate a product with a fun experience or with being popular or sexy. They can even make dodgy health claims. Like coco pops and LCM bars are good for you - yes, really they do!
"LEXI METHERELL: It's an ad for LCM bars.

AD NARRATOR: …with the goodness of puffed rice and no artificial colours.

LEXI METHERELL: What it fails to mention is that 30 per cent of the weight of the bar is sugar.

The New South Wales Cancer Council's nutrition program manager, Clare Hughes, says the maker of LCMs, Kellogg's, would argue those bars pass its criteria of what's healthy."
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4062988.htm

It isn't about preventing people from buying these foods and drinks, but with increasing rates of diabetes in children and adults, maybe it is time to stop food and drink companies from actively promoting unhealthy foods by glamorizing them or by saying they are good for you.

ttbn
"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."

Harsh but realistic.
We need to stop this ongoing trend of no personal responsibility.
I'd rather save the larger part of my compassion for people who have health issues that they did not create themselves.

The article is good, but doesn't go deep enough to recognise the root of the problem.

The reason the "Nanny state" is bad is because it is a state - an involuntary organisation that forces itself and its rules on the whole population of a vast territory, a whole continent in the case of Australia.

Had states been voluntary grass-root organisations, then I would see no problem if the people in question who chose to belong to that state also chose to appoint it as their nanny.

I can well understand the arguments of those opposing the author, but they ignore the simple fact that the entity called "Australia" is forcibly imposed on all the inhabitants of this continent, who have no option to opt out, yet remain living here so long as they do not hurt the others who do wish to belong to that entity. Such violent organisations have no right to exist, how less so to appoint themselves as our guardian nannies.

I look forward to David's next article advocating the legalisation of heroin. A clear case of Nanny Statism. If you shoot up and become a junkie, that is your problem. It may be unwise and we can disapprove of it, but it is not the government's business whether you abuse smack. You are the one affected, and the costs you incur are private.

Dear Toni,

I'm afraid you will have to wait for that heroin-article till the cows come home because David is too tame for that.

The bottom line is that the "state" is just a bunch of people who impose themselves on others - and that's no different than any other Mafia, call it by any name you like. While among themselves they may agree to any code of behaviour to suit themselves, they have no right to tell others what to do or not to do, heroin being no exception.

Obviously, if you do not choose to be a member of that bunch, then it is only fair that you should not receive any medical benefits from them and the costs should indeed be either yours alone or of some other bunch which has no rules regarding heroine, of which you ARE, voluntarily, a member.

Karl Marx claimed the "religion is the opium of the masses". Anyone who bans heroin on the grounds that "it's bad for you" could in principle, at the next stroke of their pen, ban religion as well. Perhaps you personally do not care for religion, but anyone has a weak spot, SOMETHING they do very much care about, and in principle, one who forcibly bans heroin might just as well ban whatever is dearest to YOU.

While I hate drugs, I always remember the saying: "When the Nazis came to take the gays, I didn’t stand up and object because I wasn’t gay. When they came to take the Jews, I didn’t object because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came to take the Catholics, I did not object because I wasn’t a Catholic. When they came to take me, there was nobody left to object."

TTb said
‘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.’

The state does not pay for your poor choices. But how do you make that work, we have medicare and public hospitals. Do you disallow people that are said to be obese, from entering a hospital or claiming medicare so the public does not pay for your life choices. How do you enforce that.

All good and well , but we are a developed country and we have services. I can see that happening in 3rd world countries because they do not have the services to ban people from.

That will never happen.

Dear Doog,

I see no problem with limiting the choices of those who wish to benefit from Medicare services - but allow the others who are not interested to opt out of Medicare. I refuse to use Medicare and tried to opt out myself, but found that in Australia, without a Medicare number I would be not be allowed to continue having my private medical insurance.

Yuyutsu. That scenario will never happen, and I say you know it. Eliminate obese people from medicare.

If we omit obesity from medicare why not smokers and drug attics and drinkers, where do you stop.

Give people the freedom they want, but disqualify them from injuries caused by that freedom.

The thread is all about Pie’s in skies. With wings.

There are numerous logical fallacies in this argument. Obesity has a huge cost of harm to others _ costs of medical interventions, mental health burden, obesity being passed to children, etc. Claiming that obesity is purely an individual issue is like saying that alcoholism has no social cost. An individual that cannot regulate their health is a huge burden on society

Percival Blake, welcome to olo. You sound like a sensible person.

Dear Percival,

Overall, obese people are generally of a calmer, more peaceful and content disposition.

Obese people are also less likely to become thieves: they are simply too heavy to sneak through windows or to run away fast. Sex crimes are also usually beyond their reach and so is their ability to become prime-ministers.

You say that obesity is likely to pass to their children, but then they benefit society by being less likely to infest it with children, or at least with as many children.

Currently in Australia, nearly everyone (with the exception of those who emigrate to retire elsewhere or experience a sudden death) produces a burden on society during the last years of their life. An individual that cannot regulate their health is less of a burden on society because they tend to die sooner.

The ones that should pay for any medical interventions are either the obese themselves; their insurance companies; their families; charities; or such society(s) which they willingly joined by some mutual agreement that included the provisions of such interventions, that too only if they consented to be intervened with in the first place. In any case, it should not be you and me who are forced to pay for their interventions unless we too voluntarily agreed to join those same society(s).

Chronologically, first a number of people grouped up to form a "society", then they forcibly included all the people around them in their society, whether they liked it or not. Now they shed crocodile-tears claiming that those people which they forcibly included are a burden to the society they created: all they need to relieve themselves of that "burden", is simply to allow the others to go and live their own life!