Ruminations on the Nanny State

I have lately noticed a significant increase in the use of the term "nanny state" on the net, in reports on political issues, on comment pages and in conversation.  Most notably in my own experience, the term has been employed against me for having the audacity to suggest that a proposed law allowing motorcyclists in North Carolina to ride their motorcycles sans helmet was both unnecessary and, well, dumb.

What I have always understood the term nanny state to mean is the overreaching of government into areas best left to personal choice.  The best example of what I consider the proper use of the term would be the Chicago city council's decision to outlaw the serving of fois gras in restaurants within the city's borders.  Why a governmental agency would even give an issue like that time on their agenda bewilders me and I think whether or not you believe that fois gras is cruelty on a plate or not, I would hope that we could agree that this is a perverse overstepping of both governmental action and common sense.

What bothers me is that lately it seems that the term is being used to refer to anything that government does to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.  Inherent in this argument is the Tea Party mantra that any governmental action somehow impedes our individual liberty.  This is interesting seeing that most of the Tea Party folks that I saw attending those town hall meetings got their income from Social Security and their hoverround from Medicare, but I digress.

The fact is that in order to live in a civilized and orderly society, we need a government that sets forth laws and rules that regulate our behavior.  Do these in some way inevitably impinge on our liberties?  I guess they do.  But to be a member of society, sometimes our individual liberty must give in a little to the common good.  Most of these "infringements" we don't really think about.  We have speed limits on our highways to ensure that the highways are safe for those who travel them; we have laws that make it illegal to take someone else's property and punish those who do; we have zoning ordinances to make sure that you don't put an industrial waste dump next to my house.  Most people have no problem with these, although trust me there are plenty of people who do. 

So, where do you draw the line between a government that is protecting the general welfare vs. one that is trying to regulate every infinitesimal intricacy of our every-day life?  If I knew the answer to that, I would be running the country rather than writing a blog on my lunch hour.  But, I would posit that the line is not where those throwing out the term "nanny state" are saying it is.

Let's take the example of the motorcycle helmet law.  North Carolina like most sensible and civilized states (South Carolina, I'm looking at you) require motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding on public roads and highways.  The reasons for this are many.  It makes our highways safer, it reduces the number of serious head injuries and deaths due to motorcycle wrecks, it keeps all of our insurance rates low by making it cheaper for insurance companies to insure both motorcyclists and regular automobiles, etc.  But, recently a bill was introduced into the NC House which would do away with this requirement.  Many reasons were given, most involving claims of the current law impinging on the individual rights of motorcyclists (it's not, by the way, but that is a discussion for another time) and many of those calling for a repeal of the requirement described the current law as just another example of the nanny state.  After all, an adult riding a motorcycle is only endangering themselves if they ride without a helmet, so why should the State tell them whether or not they have to?  It should be an individual's choice.

I wonder if another government regulation were thrown out there, if the same people claiming nanny state would still see it as an infringement of an individuals choice.  Let's look at regulation of illegal drugs.  Isn't it just as much of an individual choice whether or not to snort cocaine or inject heroin?  An argument can be made that if an individual wishes to use hardcore drugs that the only person that they are hurting is themselves and that the government shouldn't stand in their way.  After all, it's their life and if they want to spend it using drugs then who is the government to tell them that they can't?  Most of the problems related to drugs such as the violence that surrounds the manufacture and trade in narcotics and the crime that surrounds those who steal and rob to get money to buy drugs would be eliminated if we simply legalized it all, wouldn't it?  We certainly would save money emptying our prisons of drug dealers and users who are currently clogging the system, wouldn't we?

Now, I know that there are some hardcore libertarians out there who would agree with the line of argument that I just set forth.  That's why I love libertarians because they are absolutely consistent both in their logic and their beliefs, something I certainly can't say for myself.  But outside the absolutist social Darwinists among us, I think most of us realize that the harm that comes from the use of narcotics affects society far beyond the affect it has on the individual user.  Most of us believe that the U.S.'s regulation of and criminalization of narcotics is in the best interest of our society and serves the greater good.  Any infringement on our liberty and individual choice is far outweighed by the benefit that these policies have on our society as a whole.

So, for those who like to throw around the term nanny state and bitch and moan about every last thing our government does, I say "get over it."  But, I still think Chicagoans should be able to get some fois gras whenever the hell they want it.