Read the print version and agreed with O’Neil. 'Nanny’ conjures up love and nurturing; the state is a vicious, controlling bully interested only in its own power. We can't get enough people together to resist the state (people don't know how to use democracy) but we can simply ignore the 'personalities’ telling us what we should eat, how we should think, how we should vote. We can, but we don't, people being hooked on crap TV programs. In many cases, we don't even know who it is telling us what to do. Note the pathetic “they say this” “they tell us we should” and so on. Ask the zombies who 'they’ are, and you strike them dumb: they haven't got a clue who they are being bossed about by.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if the know-alls were right; but nine times out of ten they are talking pure bullshite.

Speaking of crap TV programs and how TV brainwashes babies toddlers and infants to be "faithful" consumers.
And how TV and the advertising industry altogether therefore tells the thus dreadfully sane zombified brainwashed/propagandized "faithful" consumer what to do, buy, and consume why not check out these references:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/kiddy.html

The book Buy Baby Buy by Susan Gregory Thomas

This has got to be one of the more senseless articles I have read in a while. I think it neatly captures the lack of broad thinking by self-styled libertarians.

There is a massive benefit to governments in improving the lifestyle and health of the population. The population is more productive for longer. Less money has to be spent on healthcare for self-inflicted ills. Less money spent on disability support for people who do stupid things.

Equally, there are good reasons why people should not be allowed to enter courts with weapons. I thought this would have gone without saying, but then again.

The trouble with libertarians it seems is that they are completely selfish and want to do whatever they like with no-one telling them not to.

Absolutely true. Thank you, Nicola.

The vast majority of people agree with the principle that victimless "crimes" should never be punished.

Then why isn't this recognised by the law?

1. Most people have never heard of this principle. Schools do not teach it.

2. Some people are not convinced that all the actions described in the article are indeed victimless.

In some cases they are right (passive smoking and providing a bad example to young people), in other cases they believe that society as a whole is a victim because it is expected to bear the costs of picking up the pieces. Well it need not and these issues can and should be addressed by the use of appropriate safeguards and alternate insurance arrangements.

3. In denying the freedom of self-defence, some think of criminals as victims-themselves. Some even justify crimes against property in terms of class-war. Serious discussion needs to occur whether the protection of on-the-job criminals should override the safety of the community.

4. This basic principle is often incorporated within the agendas of Libertarian parties that also have an economic agenda. Those who disagree with the economic agenda end up rejecting the whole, thus the issues need to be separated.

---

Dear Ttbn and Daffy,

I have no television. Thank God that for now at least, it is not compulsory to have one.

---

Dear Agronomist,

Yes, just as you described there can be a massive benefit to governments in improving the lifestyle and health of the population - they get what they want and the people, their subjects? well bugger them! Why not place them in chains to begin with, make them work hard and kill them when they no longer can work? Government could profit even more!

We V Them. How pathetic. Society must be governed, without government there is no society.

The problem is not Nanny Statism, the problem is lobbyists. To think that the deep and meaningful issues centring around our Democracy and how it uses the Governing power to direct society, as resting in the benign issues of a sugar tax; (or many from the confused list presented here as example), shows to me, the author could use a good dose of realism.

Illegal drugs are actually a serious social issue, with a real cost of lives lost to addiction, and shattered families. It is a highly debatable point, testing illegal substance for safety at music festivals, re ACT, is an acceptable alternative to outlawing the importation and illegal manufacturing of them in our communities.

To use the decriminalisation of prostitution as the example of an advance for societies good, and non Nannyism is absurd.
Legalising Prostitution was not an advance for the anti-Nanny State at all.

Two high profile Government inquiries, the Woods Commission in NSW, and the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland, unearthed corruption in both these events, among the Police Force which extended into the highest levels of Government in both States.

Prostitution was legalised in the hope of cleaning up embedded corruption. Nothing to do with an advance for Anti-Nanny State.
The focus should actually shift once again to corruption among the institutions of law enforcement, including the Judiciary, to weed out protected paedophilia rings.

If we listen to the logic of this author, maybe he would suggest legalising paedophilia for the good of freedom from Government control.

A sugar tax is positive, so is a ban on cigarette smoking, and increased taxes on their sale.
Bike helmets save the lives of adults and children alike; positive, along with the wearing of seat belts and speed limits, I would suggest.

Agronomist, this might be fine, if our "EXPERTS" had some idea of their subject. The fact is the advice given by many experts. particularly health & nutrition experts changes every 10 years or so. Often the older ones are still telling us either protein or carbohydrate is bad, while the fresh faced bushy tailed recent graduates are telling us it is good.

What we need in this world is a lot less "experts" & a lot more freedom & common sense.