Nanny Told Me Get Out of Here

David Weigel | September 27, 2007

Shawn Macomber interviews David Harsanyi about his book Nanny State--a big chunk of which is previewed in reason's newest issue.

On one hand, you describe "nannyism" as "anathema to the spirit of the American people." Yet you also acknowledge, "The fact that politicians, bureaucrats, and activists long to be our parents is not new. What is inexplicable, though, is the swiftness with which Americans have allowed these worrywarts to take on the job." If, as a collective, we're so willing to hand over personal autonomy to social engineers, can nannyism really still be classified as "anathema" to our spirit?

In fairness, the average person tends to be far less idealistic than a political observer or true believer. Most Americans, for example, are annoyed by passive smoke. The more philosophical issue of property rights or economic incentives and overall paternalism is the furthest thing from their mind. They want to enjoy dinner without reeking of smoke when they get home. For some, it's a surrender of convenience. Sadly, many of us have bought into the idea that we have the "right" not be irritated or inconvenienced -- even on someone else's property. This is a collective shift in our mindset that explains a small part of the Nanny State. What scares me the most about nannyists, though, is their disdain for free will -- which I still hope is "anathema" to our spirit. Nannies are constantly trying to persuade America that a corporation can hypnotize consumers into engaging in activities that hurt them. The nanny doesn't believe you or I have the willpower to withstand the lure of, say, Taco Bell. And they certainly they don't believe any consumer actually chooses Taco Bell. Some reviews of Nanny State have taken me to task for failing to delve into the intense and nefarious power of marketing dollars. They still don't get it. I'm a man with a king-sized addictive personality. If I can resist a Big Mac, anyone can.

The problem is each citizen has a pet issue. It may be a smoking ban. Or the need to coerce the obese to stop stuffing their faces. And when you add all of those up we have the nanny state. While all these piddling intrusions can be separately viewed as non-threatening, once you bundle them together we have a movement with the potential to inflict tremendous damage on our basic freedoms.

Whole thing here.

Headline explained here. 

Comments

|9.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#

"""Sadly, many of us have bought into the idea that we have the "right" not be irritated or inconvenienced"""

Yeah. I always get a funny look from people when I ask where is that written.

|9.27.07 @ 5:10PM|#

IT SHOULD BE RIGHT THERE, AFTER OBSERVING THE SABBATH...GOLLY, I [italic]remember[/italic] PUTTING RIGHT THERE....

|9.27.07 @ 5:12PM|#

YOU KNOW, COMMANDMENTS WERE EASIER BEFORE HTML.

ON THE NINTH DAY, I WILL CREATE AN EDIT FUNCTION FOR REASON COMMENTARY...

|9.27.07 @ 5:17PM|#

YOU KNOW, COMMANDMENTS WERE EASIER BEFORE HTML.

ON THE NINTH DAY, I WILL CREATE AN EDIT FUNCTION FOR REASON COMMENTARY...

GOD, isn't that why you created Preview on the eighth day.

|9.27.07 @ 5:23PM|#

First, I'd like to inform The Diety that HTML tags use < or >, not brackets. And You need not write "italics"; "i" is sufficient.

Second, I'd like to say "Damn straight!" to David Harsanyi's anti-paternalism argument.

|9.27.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Damned bibertarians.

JBinMO|9.27.07 @ 5:25PM|#

GOD, maybe you could work on the preview function to includa a spell check.

Episiarch|9.27.07 @ 5:28PM|#

The reason nannyism, like government, is so successful is partly because its proponents have realized that slow, incremental stealing of rights works great. Do it too fast and you get a backlash. Do it at the right pace and not only does it work, but politicians fall all over themselves to be the first to implement your nanny statism.

See Bloomberg, M.

|9.27.07 @ 5:58PM|#

It's a progressive disease. Treated like children for long enough, we become children. I've seen it happen to various acquaintences, and it really bums me out.

fyodor|9.27.07 @ 6:10PM|#

You're not the boss of me!!

But given half a chance, I'll be the boss of you!!!

|9.27.07 @ 6:26PM|#

I would add a corollary to Episiarch's comment: Most of us are too damn busy living our lives to pay close attention to what the Nannytarians are up to, until we have one of those, "What do you mean, I'm not allowed to buy gas line because I'm not a licensed fucking plumber?" moments.

*This happened to me Monday; I moved my propane tank, and I need to make a new buried line to connect it to the building. Now, I'm waiting for a friend to back-door some line to me; meanwhile, overnight temps are sinking into the thirties.

For fuck's sake...

fyodor|9.27.07 @ 6:39PM|#

At Harsanyi's book signing here in Denver Tuesday, a gal in the audience said that trans fats should be banned because people don't know about them and how bad they are.

Recalled for me how Karl Hess once said that conservatives think people are lazy but liberals think people are stupid, which is even worse.

rho|9.27.07 @ 7:08PM|#

GOD, maybe you could work on the preview function to includa a spell check.

How about if people just stop posting a reply to correct their goofs. Especially if it includes some clever excuse: "darn cosmic rays, flipping my bits!"

Shit happens, get over it, we know what you meant.

Edward|9.27.07 @ 10:48PM|#

I think nannyism is a function of an extended life span. Now that most of us will live far beyond retirment, we are more risk averse than previous generations. Not so long ago, dying in in one's mid sixties was common; now it's practically a tragedy. We buy into all the conserns of nannyism because they really are our concerns too. It never occurs to the opponents of the so-called nanny state that it reflects the prevailing Zeitgeist, not the other way around.

punctillious libertarian|9.27.07 @ 10:50PM|#

Others of us appreciate the corrections, sometimes even the wit. "Many mansions."

|9.27.07 @ 10:50PM|#

punctillllious, that is.

Edward|9.27.07 @ 10:50PM|#

Sorry, I meant retirement,not retirment, dying in, not dying in in, and, fo course, concerns, not conserns.

Edward|9.27.07 @ 10:51PM|#

Oops, I meant of course, not fo course.

Jennifer|9.28.07 @ 8:20AM|#

The reason nannyism, like government, is so successful is partly because its proponents have realized that slow, incremental stealing of rights works great. Do it too fast and you get a backlash. Do it at the right pace and not only does it work, but politicians fall all over themselves to be the first to implement your nanny statism.

I also think that, paradoxically, all the books warning against such things often make them easier for folks to accept. How many times have I seen comments on this very board suggesting, for example, that 1984 is not a warning but a source of reassurance? "Sure, there's cameras all over the public sphere but it's not like the government's putting telescreens in our houses, so chill the fuck out."

|9.28.07 @ 11:59AM|#

I also place blame for this nanny state mentality on lawyers who have sued everyone and anyone for the smallest of injury or perceived slight to one's ego. It has become thus that any pain, physical or mental, must be accounted for and moreover the 'perpetrator' of such pain and misery must be made to pay, in hard cash of course.

Robert|9.30.07 @ 11:08AM|#

In fairness, the average person tends to be far less idealistic than a political observer or true believer. Most Americans, for example, are annoyed by passive smoke. The more philosophical issue of property rights or economic incentives and overall paternalism is the furthest thing from their mind. They want to enjoy dinner without reeking of smoke when they get home. For some, it's a surrender of convenience. Sadly, many of us have bought into the idea that we have the "right" not be irritated or inconvenienced -- even on someone else's property. This is a collective shift in our mindset that explains a small part of the Nanny State.

They don't think of the property because it's not the owner who'd be smoking.

Tim Fowler|10.2.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Robert - Re: "They don't think of the property because it's not the owner who'd be smoking"

Its the owner who would allow people to smoke on his property. (And also maybe who would be smoking, he might decide to smoke too, but whether he does or not isn't important to the point.)