|
October 21, 2009
The Nanny State refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. It is used to refer to the Rudd Government and it is argued that we liberal citizens should boldly resist this attempt to strangle our basic freedom.
Thus Julie Novak, a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs, says that the National Health Preventative Taskforce is proposing to use 'nudge' social arrangements to ensure that 2020 Australians should be beer-refusing, meat pie-avoiding non-smokers.
The 'nudging' is designed to stop us from eating, drinking and smoking anything the government disapproves of. The Rudd Government desires to control what we put into our bodies, and this statism stands for a "coercive utopia".
Novak acknowledges that preventative health arises because of the blowout of future health care costs to save lives and reduce health costs:
It is argued that governments need to get involved in people's consumption choices because of potential health problems that are borne by taxpayers through the health system....This argument runs the risk of degenerating into slippery slope arguments for even more prescriptive controls over individual choices. For example, should individuals not drive cars any more so that public hospitals do not bear the costs of treatment if car accidents befall them? The health system exists for people to use, and should be separated as far as possible from questions of individual choice.
This is misleading. The issue is about drinking and driving and causing harm to others. Secondly, it is liberals, horrified by the blowout of the health budget, who have proposed that individuals take responsibility for their ill health---eg., obesity. This self discipline is done to counter what they call an "entitlement mentality", by which is meant that individuals expect that governments will step in to fix any and all problems that may arise.
Novak's position is that our precious liberties (negative freedom) have to be left intact. So how does she propose to improve our health? She says that:
it can also be argued that there are more effective research paths to help improve our health and life expectancy.Think of the serious, cutting edge research and development into new drugs by pharmaceutical companies that often require billions of dollars but promise massive payoffs.
So she is effectively speaking for the drug companies and for a pharmaceutical approach to preventive health care. This approach to health care is not argued for.
|
entrepreneurs as rugged individualists would protest over most government intervention as stifling creativity.From their perspective excessive controls are placed on us constantly by government.