Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

True meaning of the Nanny State

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Monday, 28 September 2015

Over the last few weeks I have learnt two things. First, a lot of people dislike the nanny state. The incredible popularity of the Senate Inquiry into it – both in the media and among the general public – is testimony to that.

However, it is also clear that lots of people are confused what the term 'nanny state' means, even among those who ought to know.

At its core, nanny-statism involves enacting laws and enforcing policies that interfere with or manage personal choices, when the only consideration is the individual's own good.


The Senate inquiry into Personal Choice and Community Impacts, of which I am chair, has adopted 'nanny state' as a short-hand phrase to describe its focus.

Why does this inquiry matter?

I am a classical liberal, like John Stuart Mill. And it is John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' that is at the core of the political philosophy I espouse. It states, 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign'.

The harm principle is distinct from public health interventions that address public problems, such as product safety, sanitation, vaccines and water quality. Those are not nanny state laws, as they are not directed at making individuals live their lives according to a certain set of rules or to a certain standard.

A good example of nanny state intervention can be seen in the case of obesity. If you eat too much and get fat, that is your problem. It may be unwise and we can disapprove of it, but it is not the government's business whether you eat too much and get fat. You are the one affected, and the costs you incur are private.

We should also stop using the phrase 'obesity epidemic', because obesity is not catching.


Some will argue that those who harm themselves as a result of poor choices cause the rest of us to pay more via our socialised health system. That is true, but it does not need to be the case; some countries have health systems where the costs are covered via insurance with premiums adjusted according to risk factors. And once we start telling people how to live based on this argument, where does it end? Do we want to make it a crime to eat chips, or not to exercise?

The confusion of nanny state issues with non-nanny state can be seen in relation to speeding. Typically this is not a nanny state issue because speed limits have the aim of protecting others from harm. However, that might not be the case when enforcement of speed limits occurs on an isolated, empty road.

A related problem emerges when people confuse the sort of regulation needed to protect children with regulation intended to protect adults from harming themselves through personal choices.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is a former Senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy