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.

Commonsense is an item in low supply, particularly among libertarians given Nicola Wright's article. Sadly it is Governments end up picking up the pieces when common sense is not used. It is therefore in a Government's financial interest to incentivize more common sense. Let's not have laws about wearing seat belts, because common sense will ensure that you are never hit by another vehicle.

The things Nicola Wright was raging against also included rules that stop idiots making life unpleasant for other people. Street drinking, smoking, nightclub lock outs, carrying weapons into court rooms. Common sense will no doubt stop people without commonsense from being obnoxious.

perhaps the Government should legislate a minimum requirement of common sense for everyone.

Agronomist, I applaud your sentiments.
I have been preaching that I want to see more reason and common sense in the populous and not just here in the forum.
The problem with that premise is that firstly you must have mature adults.
Unfortunately I have discussed at length that Australians are lacking in the pre-requisites to be able to master the art of common sense and reason.
This is most evident within the scribes of some on this forum.
I have concluded that even some of the most intelligent of people suffer from a severe lack of reason and common sense.
So it is you see, that IQ is not a precursor to nor does it work in tandem with reason or common sense.
Now EQ on the other hand is a more appropriate measure when it comes to assessing ones ability to reason and their level of common sense. Having self annalysed many years ago I am satisfied I have a slightly elevated amount of both IQ and EQ, along with a slightly raised level of pragmatism thereby making it possible for me to master a fair amount of reason and common sense.
Because of this I find it difficult to engage with some of the more dogged commentors who will not engage in reasonable debate but insist on pushing their agenda, no matter what anyone says.
I do not wear fools and being that I am a proud person I am not in the habit of saying untruths.
If I do it is because that is what I was told, and would ask to be corrected immediately, because the introduction of untruths or half truths only promote the wrong outcome of a discussion or debate.
BTW, my background is engineering.
A job that requires strict adhesion to maturity and pragmatism.
In other words reason and common sense.

Last week, Sen.Cory Bernardi informed of the following incident that highlights the worst of the nanny state.

"Mum, Dad and their 18-year-old daughter visited their local liquor store to purchase a couple of bottles of wine to bring to our place for dinner.

When going to pay, the parents were refused service unless their daughter provided proof of age identification.

The parents politely explained that the wine was for them and their daughter had nothing to do with the purchase.

The store attendant (equally politely) explained that because the young lady looked under 25 it was ‘the law’ she had to provide ID even if the purchase wasn’t for her.

I have no idea if it is the law or not but if it is, it only serves to demonstrate how stupid government has become.

Let’s break this stupidity down to its essence.

In this case, two adults (parents) weren’t able to purchase a legal product because they were accompanied by their daughter, who also happened to be an adult, but didn’t have identification to prove it.
The fact that this individual was not involved in the purchase at all (aside from being with her parents) meant nothing.

When the father suggested his wife and daughter leave the premises and he would buy the products, this was again refused because ‘the cameras would identify it as a ruse to break the law’.

So let’s be very clear what this means. An adult is not able to purchase a legal product if they happen to have another person with them who doesn’t meet some predetermined criteria.

It would logically mean that an adult cannot purchase cigarettes or alcohol if they have their infant child with them. I guess the government thinks it would be better to leave them in the car, or alone on the street rather than be with a parent in a store."

Raycom, I'm a full bottle on this topic.
There is always more than one reason for the existence of anything.
Laws are no different.
Firstly, apart from the obvious reasons for laws, their main function is not to keep society in line, it's to do with revenue.
Secondly and probably more importantly is that the laws are there to benefit and assist the law enforcers and legal profession.
The 'good people don't need laws.
The bad people don't respect laws.
So what do we have?
A system which is clearly inadequate, ineffective and just plain wrong.
We are charged and fined for the 'possibility' of 'maybe' doing something wrong.
A speed limit is set on a particular road.
How was it reasoned that that was the maximum speed for that road?
No answer.
This is the standard by which we live.
We are expected to follow the rules, because..........
Think about it, it's just about money.
These idiots that come up with or write up these laws, are both stupid and lazy.
So many people's lives have been ruined by the system when NO actual harm was in the mix.
Even DUI.
A random breath test, no one is involved just gets stopped.
He blows over, loses his license, most times his job, wife leaves.
Now if the stupid legal system and the utter fools who run it would only stop and think.
Hang on a minute, we want money, why don't we hit him with a big fine, let him keep his license so he can work, probably harder to pay for the fine, which means he may not have the free time or money to engage in drinking as much as before and anyway he needs most of that money to pay the fine.
Now this way the govt get their 'blood money', the guy keeps his job and his family and avoids the very real risk of ending up in jail as would happen with the current legal mentality.