Governments normally try to minimise dissent and seek consensus. Strident opposition can signal a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. A nanny state is a government that tries to give too much advice or makes too many laws about how people should live their lives, especially about eating, smoking, or drinking alcohol. Nanny states often harbour Incursions into personal rights. Comparing countries’ governments for nannyisms could look for instances of over-reach, where the gentle nanny role has become forceful.

In my previous post: Is Australia a Nanny State, my answer gave examples of government provisions that have aroused critics.

‘Many of the laws have been implemented in the expectation that they will reduce violence or improve health and safety. The excessive laws were accused of restricting freedom, ruining livelihoods and small businesses, turning the nation into a nanny state,’ Google

Provisions made to have-nots can be resented when these threaten material superiority of a majority of haves.

Below are more examples of nanny statism, intended to give a comprehensive view of the topic and rate government performances.

Provisions by the government could be unwanted, unnecessary or even harmful. Nanny-state over-provision, interference, intervention, over-reach, over-control or over expenditure could divide a nation.

A nanny’s pampering can have a bad effect. From Derrida’s post modern view, provision of welfare benefits can make the recipient dependent, or even addicted. To avoid creating dependency, the nanny should consider doing nothing at all.

Government actions can be felt in several ways other than in nannying. For the recipient, they can vary between creating a disruption at one extreme, to salvation at the other, with all shades of utility in between. An astute nanny discovers and develops potential, so that a nanny state has a good effect, experienced phenomenally and existentially.

But the effects of government actions spread like ripples on a pond. It is often the intent for a proactive nanny state to generate waves of behaviour change in a community, as a catalyst for economic reform. Speculative schemes are not usually known outside narrow elite circles until the real nanny effect is revealed. Because machinations in a nanny state are difficult to discover, most observers are unable to evaluate extent of the nanny state.

A nanny-state can be called, by virtue of a controversial provision, or because of recipient identities. When recipients are designated, the state can be at fault from ‘woke’ critics who are alert to racial prejudice and discrimination. Beginning in the 2010s, an inclusive viewpoint objected to social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT.

Envy is not usually far away when nannying is criticised. If the recipient(s) would not want it, nor use it as intended, or would divert a provision to an unintended purpose, then that provision could be called nanny-state. If other people do not receive it, but want it, the nanny state could be derided. With certain goods and services, private provision is expected and people wanting them free could resent the nanny-state.

Handing out of money, goods or services, for recipients to use without obligation, can be regarded as ‘free-loading’ or unearned benefit e.g. compensation for disaster. When the state distributes windfall benefits like these, nanny-statism can be called by anyone envious.

If the government attempts positive discrimination by protecting characteristics of its people, a nanny-state action may be unlawful. Similarly, affirmative action that attempts to remediate a neglected deficiency, can be called nanny-state and it is possibly illegal too.

A government that protects people from dangers can be accused of nanny-statism if personal choice is prevented in private situations e.g. car safety belts, bicycle helmets. There are many situations where the nanny state can be legally enforced, but a few where it can be challenged.

Critics of governments who call nanny-state may be most concerned about other people’s access, resulting in unwarranted public expenditure or corrupted funding processes.  

Haves may not want to give up their territory, or make sacrifices for have nots e.g. use of beaches, parks, facilities. Haves may not want have-nots to receive the same provision as they have at lower cost e.g. free or subsidised tickets.

Free provision may be objected to by those who are ineligible e.g. electricity rebates for users with solar panels.

A provision proposed by a nanny state may not maintain parity between people e.g. a taxation rebate. A provision may not maintain fairness, allowing greed and self-interest e.g. public barbecues; tennis courts, ballet and opera. Welfare provisions can be regarded as too generous and resented e.g. free public transport.

Free medical provision is sometimes made to people who could alternatively obtain private treatment e.g. screening. Nanny state provision is made to irresponsible people who fail to look after themselves e.g. smokers and drinkers. Nanny state provision can be used for wrong purposes e.g. used to finance drug habits.

During the Covid pandemic, the Nanny State’s legislation and propaganda tried to remove people’s choices and enforce conformance. Its actions were opposed by a significant part of the population not only with dissent but with law-breaking. There was moral outrage and civil disobedience. Many people thought that governments had gone too far in regulating behaviour, with actions insufficiently unsupported by field trials and experimentation.

Climate change activism has been practiced by Extinction Rebellion and school children, condoned by the Nanny State with loss of education time. The nanny-state has overreached, accepting protests as if these strategies could possibly prevent climate change locally. The nanny state has taken action on climate not mandated.

Your government’s performance as a nanny state is rated with difficulty. If there is overreach and people protest, there could be change to more just and equitable conditions. The nannies could need to be reined in. But it may not be possible to please all the people all the time.

I have written about Nanny state issues in my novel Turkeys Not Bees available on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/hwn74md2

My other writing is on my blog martinknox.com