True meaning of the Nanny State

The Nanny State inquiry is not about children, and attempts to make it so are a strawman. No-one disputes that children must be treated differently from adults. While I prefer decisions about children to be left to parents, without state interference, there are circumstances – like child abuse – where the state must become involved.

Public health advocates also purport to speak on behalf of the poor, less educated and less sophisticated. This looks superficially compassionate, but it is not. It is arrogant and elitist, and assumes moral and intellectual superiority.

Its effect is to hector people about unhealthy lifestyle choices, often coupled with the coercive use of state power to manipulate their purchases. This takes an economically destructive form when it results in regressive taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, which hit the poor hardest.

And there is a fundamental aspect to this issue. Every time people in love with their own expertise – including many public health advocates – seek to regulate what people buy or how they spend their time or what they put in their mouths, they forget that the people who shop are the same as those who vote.

If we can trust people to vote – a difficult and demanding choice with profound consequences – we can trust people to know what to eat, to drink, to buy, what video games to play, and whether or not to smoke. At its core, nanny statism is a threat to universal franchise.