Irrespective of whether others would make the same choices, we should be free to live our lives as we choose provided we do not harm anyone else.
But the people making bad lifestyle choices e.g. eating and drinking unhealthily, that lead to lifestyle diseases burden the health system and compromise the quality of care to those that are not making bad choices. If people want to benefit from the care of others via the State then why should not the Nanny State try and limit/prevent those bad choices. Is this dilemma analogous to a family imposing controls on Children and other members whose actions will have impacts on other family members?
Nothing says nanny state like the proliferation of licences, and nothing better illustrates the impotence of the nanny state than the current Victorian building fiasco. The VBA was responsible for enforcing building standards, but caught up in corruption and incompetence it undertook a major investigation of its operations, including 7 particularly egregious cases of defective building
works. It’s fix? Rebrand and relocate offices - while doing nothing to remedy the issues for which it has publicly acknowledged it was negligent!
“And that leaves us with an awkward question: if there are so many people incapable of making the right choices, requiring smart people to guide them, how can they possibly be expected to elect a government? Won’t they get that wrong too?”
Irrespective of whether others would make the same choices, we should be free to live our lives as we choose provided we do not harm anyone else.
But the people making bad lifestyle choices e.g. eating and drinking unhealthily, that lead to lifestyle diseases burden the health system and compromise the quality of care to those that are not making bad choices. If people want to benefit from the care of others via the State then why should not the Nanny State try and limit/prevent those bad choices. Is this dilemma analogous to a family imposing controls on Children and other members whose actions will have impacts on other family members?
This is a common response - if your choices cost me money due to socialised health care, why can't I exercise control over those choices?
The answer is to either modify or abolish socialised health care, so we each pay for our own choices.
To Gerardine Hoogland' There are definitely too many people making the wrong choices. That is why Labor has stayed in power for so long.
Compulsory vs voluntary voting?
Nothing says nanny state like the proliferation of licences, and nothing better illustrates the impotence of the nanny state than the current Victorian building fiasco. The VBA was responsible for enforcing building standards, but caught up in corruption and incompetence it undertook a major investigation of its operations, including 7 particularly egregious cases of defective building
works. It’s fix? Rebrand and relocate offices - while doing nothing to remedy the issues for which it has publicly acknowledged it was negligent!
“And that leaves us with an awkward question: if there are so many people incapable of making the right choices, requiring smart people to guide them, how can they possibly be expected to elect a government? Won’t they get that wrong too?”
The pivotal question.