It seems to me that Australians have accepted the nanny state, and the uniparty obliges them.

The nanny state works for the likes of Anthony Albanese - brought up in public housing with the help of the dole, never had a proper job, no good at the make believe one he has now, but a millionaire nevertheless.

Communist nanny states work for the few who create them, but not for the idiots who vote them in.

WTF?
This just seems like a personal rant rather than an attempt at putting forward a logical discussion topic.

But I'll give it a shot.

Using a catch phrase such as "nanny state" is anything but helpful.

Just the same way that the term "woke" has so many different definitions that the term is now almost completely ignored by sensible people, the term "nanny state" can mean whatever the reader wants the term to mean.

I've always proclaimed that prohibition does not work. One only has to look at the results of Portugal's decriminalisation of drug use to see how focused and well thought out policies can make a difference.

This would have made for an interesting discussion about government regulations rather than complaints about helmet rules and teenage vaping - "a proven safe alternative to cigarette smoking" Really?

The author states: "It can reach peak absurdity when a homeless, penniless, destitute person is still considered unworthy because they are white, male, heterosexual, or enjoy any of the other imagined sources of advantage. It takes a rare kind of superior intelligence to come to that conclusion."

It takes a rare kind of intelligence to come up with this statement and not expect people to see it for what it is - a constructed nonsense.

This article is just a "shotgun rant". Firing off a bunch of emotive statements hoping some hit. An article about the "nanny state" which concludes with the author taking about "so many people incapable of making the right choices."

As if anyone would listen to anything this misogamist had to say about anything.

The nanny state States are now telling people what they can pray about.

NSW has joined the Vics in making it illegal to pray for homosexuals or those suffering from sexual dysphoria - even if requested to do so. Pretty stupid when you realise people can pray privately and silently; but totalitarians just have to make laws for everything.

And they obviously think that prayer works.

The author believes that "we should be free to live our lives as we choose [provided we do not harm anyone else]".

I doubt the correctness of that statement, and wish the author could support it with more rationale and evidence.

Nevertheless, I still reach similar conclusions like the author because I believe that it is morally wrong to force my choices on others.

Generally, I am only responsible for what I do, not for the actions of others, so when someone forces their choices on another, that is a matter between them and God, rather than my business to stop them. Surely they will suffer for that violence of theirs, but not at my hands.

However, when a state claims that its imposition of restrictions on other peoples' behaviours is presumably "in my name" or "on my behalf", it then becomes my duty to object, protest and vote against the perpetrators - I have never given anyone consent to abuse others on my behalf.