2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $1675.86Goal: $10000
Information icon.svg At the chicken coop, we are currently voting on a change to the blocking policy to clarify when offsite behavior such as harassment and brigading can get someone banned from RW. A reminder that you need at least 75 edits and to have had an account for at least 3 months to vote.
Significantly problematic article

Nanny state

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The French Nanny State of 1901
Oh no, they're talking about
Politics
Icon politics.svg
Theory
Practice
Philosophies
Terms
As usual
Country sections
United States politics British politics Canadian politics Chinese politics French politics German politics Indian politics Iranian politics Israeli politics Japanese politics South Korean politics Turkish politics

Nanny state (also known as government paternalism) is a snarl term used by libertarians and sometimes, though hypocritically, by conservatives[note 1] for perceived over-regulation by a government. The classic example involves laws requiring the wearing of a seat-belt, but the label can refer to any behavior that risks harm to the self but no one else. A list of potential candidates for accusations of nanny statism would include:

Conservapedia even includes compulsory education, public-service announcements encouraging healthy eating, and (why not?) Hillary Clinton's observation and subsequent book title, "It Takes a Village."[2]

Nannyism or reasonable restrictions on "rights" (like the right to be stupid)?[edit]

As usual, whether the government action qualifies as “nanny statism” depends on whether the person agrees with the action. Sin taxes, at minimum, raise revenue for necessary infrastructure, education, and public services without distorting the economy in harmful ways. Actions that seem to threaten only the well-being of the person who engages in the risky behavior can potentially harm others because others often have to pay for the medical treatment by way of increased hospital costs. Recreational drugs have harmful effects on people other than just the user, notably the neglected children of drug addicts and people who have to deal with drunken/drugged behaviour from others (see Drug Liberalization for more on this topic).

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Oh, sure, conservatives say they want small government, but they have a nasty tendency towards authoritarianism, which, among many other things that any sane person would fault it for, is basically the exact opposite of small government.
  2. Conservapedia includes requirements for fire sprinklers in new construction,[2] though fire spreading from house to house is a harm that affects more than just the individual whose "rights" are allegedly curtailed.

References[edit]