The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice

In recent times, a number of Australian Government policy initiatives have been criticised as ‘nanny state’ or ‘paternalist’ policies.

Describing policies in this way resonates with concerns held by many that there should be limits to the extent to which governments should protect people from the consequences of their choices.

But are there circumstances in which some help from ‘nanny’ can be justified?

When is government paternalism justifiable?

A core assumption of liberal societies is that individuals are the best judge of their own interests and therefore are best placed to make choices about how to live their lives. But what if a choice—say, to take adictive drugs or to smoke—is likely to be detrimental to the person involved? Can governments be justified in interfering with individual choices in the interests of the person concerned? This question is examined in the new Parliamentary Library Research Paper, Paternalism in social policy—when is it justifiable? 

Attitudes to same-sex marriage

The Federal Parliament is currently debating a motion on same-sex relationships moved by Adam Bandt—the recently elected Australian Greens party member for the seat of Melbourne. The motion notes there is ‘widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community’ and calls on ‘all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality’. As a result of this and other related debate, there is currently great interest in what public opinion polls may be able to tell us regarding changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage.

Who's really time poor?

What exactly does it mean to be time poor? Is it simply a matter of work-life imbalance? Can anyone—poor or wealthy—be time poor? Or should time poverty actually be about more profound issues such as control over one’s life? These are the kinds of questions addressed by Professor Bob Goodin of the ANU in his keynote address to the 11th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference (Melbourne Convention Centre, 7 July). Goodin presented the findings of his research in the area of work-life balance (undertaken with colleagues, James Mahmud Rice, Antti Parpo and Lina Erikson) published in the book, Discretionary time: a new measure of freedom.