Based on purely moral and philosophical principles, the author is correct: people ought to be free to hurt themselves if so they choose - still I wonder why the author repeatedly keeps providing these same extreme, repugnant or questionable examples: drugs, alcohol, smoking, shooting, while there are 1000's of other things, good things, decent things, everyday things, which the nanny state prohibits us from doing. Had the author given better examples, he could have gained so much more sympathy - and votes!

So let me pick here on one everyday example: why does the state prohibit us to hire a snake?

No, I don't mean the venomous reptile - I refer to that tool that plumbers use to clear blocked sewers.

Suppose your shower drain is blocked by weeds, hair or excess soap, so you need to get perhaps 1-2 meters inside and remove the blockage. Only a "snake" can do it.

There are places where you can hire such tools, but if you try to hire it, they will ask to see your plumber's certificate, otherwise they say "sorry, this is illegal". If you ask why, they will tell you that a non-qualified person might get their snake into their neighbour's drainage system and damage it. So nanny cannot even trust us to know how far our next-door neighbour is (much more than 1-2 meters) and where our private sewers could end.

Thus we are forced to pay a plumber $100 instead of doing this simple job ourselves for about $20.

What is called "the state" is just a collection of other people. Given that none of them on their own has the natural/moral right to force me to hire a plumber, what then gives them such a right only because they join their forces?

What's really sinister here are politicians of dubious character, who always look for a headline and that's their entire contribution?

I learned two things today, #1/ India has plans to phase out all sales of Australian coal by 2024.

#2/ That Germany has a plan to completely phase out coal by retraining coal workers all of them for other suitable occupations. And doable in a manufacturing-based economy. Anyway, coal mining for wages has a very short time to go here given there are robots in coal mines now replacing human miners and sure to accelerate with the advent of criminal manslaughter liability!

Is this also, more of the sinister side of the nanny state writ large?
Alan B.

It's official!
Aussies are the most stupid, gullible, ignorant people on the planet!
Those of you who relish the idea of all these restrictive laws, can't see we're having trouble breathing. (metaphorically)
And it's not the air, or pollution.
It's the fact that the govt has to make laws to force people to be,.......well, better people.
Now there is another stupid law that makes my injuring myself, the fault of someone in an office somewhere well away from the action.
People you are fools, childish, ignorant fools, one and all, and it is quite visible hear on OLO as a confirmation of my accusation, or charge.
Here's just one example, because we don't get enough space to give too many.
A 'roofy' once said to me, just after the law was passed that they had to secure a safety harness to the roof before they could do any work on said roof.
So he said to me, 'OK what is going to stop me from falling off when I'm beginning and finishing the job'?
Before starting the job there is no harness, when finished and coming down there's no harness.
No what the biggest joke of all is that all these pathetic Nanny laws do NOTHING to curb deaths.
In every example the death toll has increased.
People you are supposed to be adults, so stop looking for excuses to blame someone else for you being so damn stupid, irresponsible and childish.
The sad thing is, it has NOTHING to do with safety or concern for the public.
It has EVERYTHING to do with insurance companies.
They will always justify these oppressive decisions with some BS or another, in a futile attempt to justify their position or reasoning.
I am the exception to all these stupid rules and you stupid people.
I've NEVER had a road incident or what is laughingly called, an 'accident'.
I had a helmet exemption for many years, but because of jealous, snivelling, lefty idiots, who could not stand seeing someone getting an advantage, they forced law change to bring us down to their pathetic level.

By the way David, loved your interaction and put down on that smarmy maggot, little miss"two-dads".
I dislike her beyond what anyone would call reasonable.
I wish you had done her a lot more harm than I recall.
She is typical of her ilk, arrogant, self indulgent, and so far up herself, I imagine she enjoys it judging by her social life.
I and many others were disappointed you did not put the boot in and finish her useless "career" off while there was the opportunity.
She pretty much encompasses and is typical of maggots in places they should not be, and are not wanted or needed.
Hope you keep giving them a hard time every time they try to put down men.
Keep it up, I'm not sure where you're at these days, but it's worth knowing you have the backing of millions of men around the country, and some socially aware, broad minded women as well.

Yuyutsu

That's intriguing. I've never experienced a situation where I couldn't hire a snake to clear my own sewer blockage. I'd need evidence that the hire of which contravenes any state law.

There are considerable legal restrictions built around sewer systems which I would feel are quite legitimate. The reason for their legitimacy is to safeguard public health.
It is unwise allowing every jack and his dog to interfere with this important public health infrastructure, even the bit at the private domestic end in your home.

One running sore for local councils, is the illegal connection of storm water into sewer lines.

I think rules and regulations built around the need to safeguard public health are, on the most part, positive contributions. But then you do get situations where a public toilet facility, installed to support public health, are locked down during night hours, making a mockery of that.

Dan

Not convinced any single psych theory can cover it. Devaluing of good manners perhaps. Runaway bureaucracy and it's parent/child of rentseeking activity maybe. Attack dog journalism plays a part pressuring optics worried governments to be seen as doing something.
Much comes from genuine desire to prevent the last bad thing that happened from ever happening again, which is simply an emotional response that blocks it's ears to reason.

Some new rules look a lot like they've been created from applying a workplace safety risk and hazard assessment checklist process to activity outside the workplace sphere. If this is the case it's worse than sinister, it's dumb. Sinister at least can be countered by exposure.

It goes without saying a very small amount of regulation is beneficial. Connection to shared utilities and infrastructure is a place where some standardization and competency is necessary.
Some regulation is designed to provide a window to operate in without being sued.

However most is purely rentseeking. It's about the money. Selling licences and accreditation courses has become quite a thing. Some in industry even welcome this because they feel it'll mean fewer competitors and a requirement to buy their products.

What isn't counted is the invisible cost of economic activity prevented from ever happening. This is probably by far the largest cost