Nannies to Right of Us, Nannies to the Left of Us.
The Press has done an editorial criticising the Labour government's Nanny attitudes. Much of the editorial is spot on but it also exemplifies the muddled, contradictory thinking of conservatives.
The editorial notes that the Nanny State is a "we know best" attitude that "attempts to remake New Zealand society according to its own ideology." That is not quite an accurate definition by any means. Then the introduction to the editorial gets even worse: "Among the manifestations of this have been its civil unions, prostitution reform and child discipline legislation."
The body of the editorial talks about actual Nannyism but the introduction does not. And that is because The Press apparently doesn't have a coherent definition of what is Nanny Statism.
Nannyism is the drive of government to regulate and control people in order to protect them from themselves. It is when government acts as a Nanny would who she sees a child playing with matches. It is when government treats adults like children.
Does the civil unions legislation do that? No! It expands the freedom of adults, it doesn't constrict it. If anything, that is one issue where Labour was not acting like Nanny but granting adult rights to gay people equal to other adults in New Zealand.
The prostitution reform bill decriminalised brothels. Instead of Nanny protecting adult Kiwis from their own choices it was making it legal for them to make those choices. That is the absolute opposite of Nannyism.
The real Nanny Statists on that issue were opponents to the legislation, such as the Maxim Institute. Their position was that individuals have to be protected from their own choices because their choices are bad. That is Nannyism in its purest form.
This also reveals the absurdity of the definition of Nannyism used by The Press. This is not an attempt "to remake New Zealand society". The government did not magically create gay couples by their legislation, they just recognised that they exist and that people have the right to be in same-sex relationships. Given the importance of committed relationships government recognised that committed same-sex couples should be recognised in a manner similar to opposite-sex couples.
The law did not remake society. It recognised that within society the presence of same-sex couples is very real and that the law treated them unfairly. Righting a wrong by government is not Nannyism.
Nothing in the prostitution reform act remade society. Prostitutes, their customers and brothels existed long before the Labour Party sat in parliament. In fact, I would hazard a guess that prostitution existed in New Zealand before the modern Kiwi government came into existence.
Previously the law said to adults engaged in acts of prostitution, buyers, sellers or middlemen, that their actions would earn them punishment. The punishment was not because they violated the rights of others but because they were doing something that the State said was "bad" for them. It was protecting them from themselves.
When government prevents individuals from doing things which do not violate the rights of other, but which may be harmful to themselves, that is Nannyism. And Nannyism is not confined to the political Left but is rampant on the Right as well.
Left-wing Nannyism is antismoking legislation, Right-wing Nannyism is anti-drugs legislation. Left-wing Nannyism is forcing you to use light bulbs they prefer. Right-wing Nannyism is banning gambling, censorship of erotica, bans on voluntary sexual acts such as homosexuality or prostitution, and so forth.
The sad reality is that the conservative forces in New Zealand are just as much, if not more so, advocates of Nanny Statism. Of course, there is a long tradition on the Right of moral hypocrisy -- they are most given to attacking others for doing what they themselves do. Perhaps it is the sins they know best that cause them the most fear.
The Right knows Nannyism in a very personal way. Yes, Labour has been guilty of Nannyism. So have the Greens. But so has National, United Future and the odious New Zealand First personality cult. The reason that freedom in New Zealand faces decline is because all these political parties are Nannies now. The Right has no business pointing fingers at Labour until they put their own house in order.
Unfortunately that won't happen. Nanny Statists like Peter Dunne, John Key and Winston Peters will make sure that the government-knows-best mentality is alive and well. The only difference is that they will disagree with Labour over the application of that principle. But when it comes to the Nanny Principle itself both Conservatives and Socialists are firm adherents. Only real liberals oppose Nanny.
All items in this journal reflect the personal opinions of the author and are not necessarily those of the Institute for Liberal Values or its Board members.
Previous (Welcome Home: the journeys of David Mamet and George McGovern.) - Next
Nannies to Right of Us, Nannies to the Left of Us.
Welcome Home: the journeys of David Mamet and George McGovern.
Dominion Post in needless panic
Does Liberalism Have a Heart?
The moral problems of state power in regards to war.
Kiwi health: spend more, care less
Hurricanes and hot air: the sequel
Morality and Consistency: Why Left and Right both threaten freedom.
Ageing, population and the welfare state.
The bankruptcy of conservatism.
More journal entries...
|
Home - Books - Issues - Downloads - About Us - Journals - Thinkers - Links - Library - Subscriptions |
|
|
Institute for Liberal Values, Thursday September 9th 2010. |
|
|
|
