Beware the Nanny State... a wolf in sheep's clothing
Paving the way for more and more government control
Those who want governments to do more for them; to provide more services or programs, or to better regulate certain aspects of society with more laws or policies really need to think about what they are advocating for. Because this type of nanny statism paves the way for greater government control and authoritarianism. Because, essentially, the more things governments control, the more they can control their citizens.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the term ‘nanny state’ as – a government that tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live their lives, especially about eating, smoking or drinking. Based on that definition Canada is already very much there. And a fair number of Canadians seem to be just fine with having the government look after them by enacting laws or issuing edicts on how we are to live–for our own good or for the ‘greater good’. We’ve kind of gotten used to our governments, spending a lot of time, money and energy trying to save us from ourselves. They have introduced a plethora of health and safety initiatives and regulations and laws aimed at modifying our behaviours and even our personal choices. This includes laws making seat belts mandatory on pain of a hefty fine for non-compliance, lowering speed limits on highways and introducing other traffic ‘calming’ measures in cities to in an effort to reduce traffic accidents. The wearing of motorcycle and bicycle helmets have also been made mandatory to reduce head injuries in the event of an accident. And these all seem like good things.
Or you can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi.
But then there are all those government information and education programs aimed at reducing alcohol consumption and promoting healthier eating–some of which can be somewhat dubious. For example the latest Canadian Alcohol Guidelines are viewed by some experts as being too extreme. The revised Canada Food Guide says we should eat less meat, which really has more to do with this Liberal government’s climate change obsession than it has to do with health. Nanny states love ‘sin taxes’ which try discourage people partaking in what are viewed as unhealthy habits such as smoking or drinking, but they are also huge money makers for governments. In Canada, both cigarettes and booze are heavily taxed and of course the recent legalization of marijuana has created another cash cow for the government. In many cases these sin taxes often amount to more than the actual cost of the product itself. The current Trudeau government also introduced an ‘escalation’ tax on alcohol, meaning more tax is automatically added on any bottle of booze, wine, or can of beer, at least twice a year. Some governments have also considered placing higher taxes on sugary or fattening foods or soft drinks to curb obesity and diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes, but we’re not their, yet.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s manic obsession with climate change has led to his burdening Canadians with a tax on carbon emissions, which he in typical nanny state double speak calls in a tax on pollution. How carbon dioxide which is a basic building block for all life on earth can be considered pollution is beyond me. Whatever the term, Canadians must pay additional taxes on the already heavily taxed fuel they need to drive their cars and to heat their homes. Necessities in a country where public transit is not readily available in many areas and where for almost six months of the year, the weather requires people to heat their homes or freeze to death. This is really a new kind of ‘sin’ tax philosophy—taxing a necessity. But, all of these ‘sin taxes’ kind of cross the line when it comes to the Cambridge dictionary’s definition of nanny state, because the government is no longer just giving advice or introducing regulations to determine how people should live their lives, it is now financially punishing people for their choices and in some cases where they have no choice. But such is the ‘creeping’ nature of the nanny states.
Yet, there seems one element of the nanny state that some are more than happy to embrace. That is the idea of ‘free’ or heavily subsidized government services. This includes such things as daycare, pharmacare, health care, school lunch programs, free college of university and even a universal guaranteed income. What many people don’t seem to get is that all of these programs cost money—they aren’t free. And as the government’s only income are tax dollars it collects from it citizens, they must find a way to extract even more money from taxpayers to finance such programs They always say they are going to do it by taxing the rich, yet it seems it is always the middle class that ends up carrying the can. And the delivery of such government services is often left wanting, a glaring example being the sorry state of our so-called universal health care system. Ironically the need for some of these programs is often created by the government’s own actions. Take the Liberal’s latest plan for a school lunch program. Maybe if it they hadn’t insisted on two carbon tax hikes in the past year, which has driven up fuel prices and thereby food prices, and perhaps if it had capped its spending and borrowing it wouldn’t have driven up inflation and food prices to the point where people can’t afford to put food on the table — maybe it wouldn’t need to introduce a lunch program to feed their kids.
We seem to have evolved into a country where many have come to depend on and look to governments to solve their problems, be it safety concerns, social concerns, financial concerns or health concerns. And despite the clear evidence of a failing public health system, which became even clearer during the pandemic it would seem that a lot of Canadians are still in favour of more ‘free’ universal services which it seems government’s like the Trudeau liberals are more than happy to deliver.
But now, nanny state governments, such as the Trudeau government, are becoming increasingly invasive, having introduced bills and legislation to manage the on-line information we receive to ‘protect’ us from being exposed to what it calls ‘misinformation and disinformation’, although they never explain what misinformation or disinformation is. Is everyone really okay with relying only on state funded newspapers and broadcasters like the CBC to give us our news and information? Then there is it’s latest proposed legislation to go after online hate speech, which is a clear indication of a government has moved from the nanny state to full on authoritarianism by planning to enact laws to punish people for hate speech. The only problem is, it is the government that determines what this offending hate speech is.
The Trudeau government is also making noises about introducing a central bank digital currency and digital ID. This would ensure the government would be able to track all of your spending habits and financial investments. Not to mention having control over how you spend your money and even if you spend your money, if it so desired. The Trudeau government has already made it quite clear it will punish its citizens financially if they criticize its policies; it had no problem freezing and seizing bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters. Introducing a digital currency would only make such punitive actions on the part of the government even easier. Moving to a centralized digital ID system would also create more privacy concerns by further reducing the control over who has access to your data or how it’s being used. Even more sinister, a single digital ID system would reduce anonymity, hindering any activities where such anonymity is important, like whistleblowing, expressing dissenting opinions, or political activism. Do we really this type of government intrusion into our lives?
Look at how it has already intruded into our lives in the name of of so-called climate change. They’re already banning plastics and they have increased carbon tax on everything from fuel for your car and home heating to fuel farmers need to grow crops and run their operations. They’re are pushing for people to buy electric cars, by planning to complete ban gas power vehicles in the not to distant future. This despite the fact that electric vehicle in northern climates and rural areas simply aren’t practical or even functional. Meanwhile windmill farms, which are extremely inefficient energy producers, are destroying scenic landscapes and killing bird and bats. They haven’t got to to 15 minute cities, limiting air travel, and eating bugs instead of meat, all in the name of achieving net zero, while China builds coal fired energy plants at brake neck speed. But these things are all on the table, whether we like it or not, from our nanny state.
These are the reasons the more libertarian thinking people dislike the ‘nanny state’. They see these moves by governments as the state narrowing both individual freedoms, individual autonomy and individual responsibility. They believe people should be free to make choices and take risks as long as such things don’t infringe on another's rights or safety. They believe people should be responsible for making their own choices and earning their own livelihoods with minimal interference from the state. They believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they eat or drink. They believe people should be able to drive the cars they want. They believe people should be able to access all the information they want, from any number of sources and decide for themselves whether it is credible or not – and not have government bureaucrats rubber stamp what people can see and hear. And they think they should be able to say what they think without worrying about some faceless government bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding it is ‘hate speech’. They also know how easily nanny states can evolve into police states.
If we look back on our governments handling of the COVID 19 pandemic – it had all the hallmarks of a police state. Citizens movements were controlled and restricted and even monitored. Many people were entirely dependent on the government for their livelihoods with Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), which was obviously a pilot project for a universal basic income program.
People needed passports or perhaps what would be more accurately called ‘their papers’ to participate in society—to go to restaurants, theatres, sports arenas, and gyms and to get on a city bus. We had to line up to get into grocery stores. Sometimes grocery store shelves were sparsely stocked due to supply chain issues caused by pandemic restrictions. Access to health care services was controlled or limited in the name of keeping the healthcare system open to treat COVID patients and only COVID patients. People could not leave the country unless they agreed to specific government requirements in the form of getting the COVID 19 vaccine due a vaccine travel mandate instituted by the Trudeau government. People who were able to travel internationally were subjected to severe quarantine measures requiring them to spend days isolated in hotel rooms they were not allowed to leave.
Police arrested people for not following government rules and regulations regarding the wearing of masks, attending events and/or participating in what the government had deemed illegal activities, such as attending religious services. Police could come into your home without a warrant if they was thought you had more people at a gathering than the government had deemed was appropriate. People were encouraged to report those who were not abiding by all the rules and restrictions.
The government, with the help of state sponsored media, went to great lengths to ‘save’ us from being exposed to any ‘misinformation or disinformation about the virus. Any scientists or other professionals that disagreed with the governments restrictions, the need for vaccines or its overall response to the pandemic were silenced, sanctioned and de-platformed. Doctors who spoke out about any of these could have their licenses to practice revoked or suspended. That sounds an awful lot like life in the in the former Soviet Union.
Yet a large number of Canadians also seemed quite comfortable with the governments’ excessive and hyperbolic measures to combat COVID 19 and control information received about the virus, the treatments and remedies for it, and even where it came from. This insanity went on for almost three years and but for some ‘rowdy’ protesters — like the trucker’s Freedom Convoy — many Canadians seemed fine with it. Many supported the lockdowns and when governments chose to open up some groups, such as the mainstream media and teachers unions, thought they should lockdown harder and longer. A lot of this blind compliance from the populace came from fear, stoked by our governments, and again, the mainstream media. Yet others saw it for what it really was – a test to see how much compliance and control governments could exercise over their citizens before they would begin pushing back. Something no government in a democratic country should ever do or even consider doing. Yet they did it, and quite successfully. In Canada, the Trudeau government crushed the only push back they encountered – the Freedom Convoy with the invocation of the, never before used, Emergencies Act and according to some surveys, the majority of Canadians supported this action, even though a Federal court has since ruled that the government’s invoking of the Act was illegal and unconstitutional.
The pandemic served as harbinger as to how easily governments can gain control of their citizens, and can be tempted to gain more control when they see how easily the majority of people comply. The nanny state’s offering of ‘free’ services and social programs seems to be able to seduce people into believing ‘more’ government is a good idea. That’s the soft fluffy wool sheep, masking the wolf which often begins as socialism and grows into the bigger and badder in authoritarianism.
So people who like some aspects on the nanny state really need to ask themselves, do they really want the government raising their kids and even feeding their kids? Do they really want to be dependent on the government for the type of housing they can rent or buy. Do they really want the government controlling what they can eat or drink? Do they really think an annual stipend from the government in the form of an annual guaranteed would increase or decrease their independence and freedom from having to earn a living. All of these things come at a cost because they aren’t free. Beyond the actual costs in terms of tax dollars, is another greater cost, because what the government gives, the government can take away. This includes your money, your children, your property and even your life. Because when it comes down to it – a nanny state is nothing more than a polite euphemism for police state. It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Or you can make a one time donation to my newsletter via Ko-fi
Nanny state will anagram to 'NT Satan yen' and 'an nasty net'. Seems right. Most of the health and safety laws have been to give an excuse for people to make money off people being forced to comply.
I now question the data behind the justification of such laws. In any event there are no qualms about big harma posioning people, the biggest threat of them all.
Great piece, thanks you! IF you gotta be a sheep, be a black one! 🐑