The writers argues that governments are increasingly using public health policies to justify greater control over individual lifestyles. From smoking bans and vaccine mandates to proposed obesity regulations, she posits that adults should retain the freedom to make their own health decisions, even when those choices carry risks.
A smoking ban is extended to outdoor patios. A suggested law would fine parents/guardians whose children have a BMI over a certain limit.
Each guideline is sold as public health, however, it is public control. The nanny state doesn’t seek permission – it assumes consent. Classical liberalism starts with an easy proposition: adults own their own bodies.
That ownership is inclusive of the right to make flawed choices: to consume sugar; to ignore exercise; to smoke; to deny vaccines. The state may communicate, convince, and alert; and in limited cases mandate truthful disclosure – but it may not ban or compel individual choices. Coercion is coercion even when concealed in a white coat.
The nanny state has mastered the art of beneficent overreach; every directive is warranted by statistic. Smoking causes lung cancer. Sugar fuels diabetes. The are all true. But more fundamentally, that these statements are true does not give politicians the power to control what an adult chooses to put in their own body.
