The Case for a Totalitarian State

by Karen De Coster
Nov. 08, 2011

It is always pointed out that when a state is invasive and tyrannical and it denies our ability to act on our own choices in the name of "keeping us all safe," it is a "Nanny State." That is, a state that provides for us and watches over us.

However, a real nanny is one who is an invited provider who voluntarily becomes a caretaker by transacting with another party to provide services. The state's nannyism does not provide a service, and it only becomes a "caretaker" by forcing itself upon you and dictating your actions and choices. And there really is no care at all in a "Nanny State" - only control and force with the threat of punishment for those who do not obey their masters.

This woman - a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald - has written the most loopy piece I have ever seen that anecdotally advocates for an absolute paternal state. She writes:

Without the ''nanny'' state we would be in serious trouble. More people would die on the roads or smoke themselves to an early grave; more would be maimed by defective consumer goods, and conned by false and misleading advertising; and more toddlers would drown in backyard swimming pools.

...Yes, we have reason to be thankful that governments sometimes legislate in ways that infringe on our liberties. Personal responsibility is too flimsy a bulwark against the forces of irresponsible, laissez-faire capitalism.

Consumers, says the author, deserve "protection" from harmful things such as poker machines and a car without seatbelts. According to her, the general population is too stupid, too poor, too persuaded, and too confused to fight the wicked capitalist forces that control their choices that others, like her, don't want them to embrace.