Browse > Home / freedom, Nudge Dredd, Personal Freedom / Time for a Nanny Unit

| Subcribe via RSS



Time for a Nanny Unit

February 15th, 2011 Posted in freedom, Nudge Dredd, Personal Freedom by

The question of what sort of nannying Alain De Botton would like, got me thinking about those who desire nannying and the people would rather run their own lives.

This led me to wander if it is possible to reconcile that liberal aspiration with a ‘Nanny State’?

It seems that many people believe nannying is a good thing. According to de Botton people need help with what to eat, smoke and drink.

For those who would rather control their own lives this is all a bit annoying as they get dragged into the nannying. Perhaps one could describe this as a ‘tragedy of the nanny’.

What if the ‘Nanny State’ gave way to a nanny unit?

Those who need nannying would pay into a fund for this service. The payment could be progressive or a flat rate. The charges might be based on the level of nannying you desire. For instance, if you would like someone to come and bring you your five a day mix of fruit and vegetables you would pay more than if you simply got sent a regular text message reminding you to eat your apples and broccoli.

The people who wish to control their own lives would not receive any nannying and would not pay into the fund.

An immediate problem is whether people would opt in or opt out of the nannying unit. For those who believe in nannying the opt out route would be most attractive.

The decision on opting in or out is probably best done on the basis of cost.  Is it cheaper to enrol everyone automatically or make them pay a large entrance fee when they opt in? Should one pay a substantial amount to opt out once in?

For those readers who think it is high time for me to remove my tongue from my cheek, the Republican Senator Ron Paul has recently suggested that Americans be given the option to pay a 10% tax for the rest of their lives and in return never ask anything from government bar some basic State provision such as protection by the military.

I should stress I came up with the nanny unit before reading about Paul’s proposals.

11 Responses to “Time for a Nanny Unit”

  1. richard hansen Says:

    Nice try but I’m afraid it will not work. Evidently, according to those who wish to be “nannied”, based on some trans-universal,anti-logical, pseudo-psycic-psycho collectivism science (I’m sure there is a study somewhere)the said “nannying” does not work unless it is foisted upon everyone. Yes, sad but true, the ‘magic’, as it were, is an all or nothing proposition and since the supposed dangers are of epic proportion…..well you know where this is headed. But thanks to your insightful post I will likely pine for the days when I could simply……OPT OUT.


  2. Lotus 51 Says:

    10% tax in return for self-reliance?

    Even if the saving in tax were significantly less than the cost of public services that I use (leaving me with less disposable income) I would still sign up to this and be confident in the certainty that I would extract better value and better services for the money that I spent for my family on the services I wanted from the providers of my choice, than the government ever could.

    I would also be happier that I wasn’t relying on extortion of others via taxation to pay for my family’s standard of living.

    Of course this would not do as it would end up in unequal outcomes; we must all suffer equal misery and mediocrity together.

    In actual fact I already have made this decision – making sacrifices to pay for private education for my children, private health insurance, insurance against incapacity etc. I just don’t have the 10% tax side of the equation.

    Of course the political climate in this country is not such that this 10% deal is a remote possibility in any kind of guise. Maybe the Libertarian Party should change its name to The 10% Party (this would of course require the minarchist libertarians to prevail over the anarcho-capitalists)

    An interesting idea though. If all taxes were dropped to *10% and accounting for the dynamic effects this would have in the economy, what would the Treasury’s revenues be able to afford after payment of interest on govt debt to pay for bygone profligacy? Sadly not very much I should imagine. I would love to have acces to the Trasury’s fiscal model to play with tax rates and see the predicted outcomes.

    *Hec even 30% would be a start (10% employers NIC + 10% employees NIC + 10% income tax) would be a start, that’s how voracious our government has got.


  3. Simon Goldie Says:

    Both comments highlight the challenge of moving towards a more liberal society where people control their lives.


  4. David Chiverton Says:

    An incall/outcall “Nannying” Service paid for by consenting adults? You’re on the wrong sort of website Simon….


  5. Simon Goldie Says:

    Well I guess a true liberal would let the service emerge from volunteers and not call for it to be created! But it is important to compromise. Where do you think I should be?


  6. David Chiverton Says:

    I was being slightly rude, I’m guessing my mind works at a far lower level then yours (morally!)


  7. Simon Goldie Says:

    Well I can be a bit earnest at times.


  8. Ed Joyce Says:

    As a libertarian I am tired of those with views contrary to those of self declared libertarians defining what libertarianism is or should be, as in the statement below

    A libertarian state truly worthy of the name would accept that our freedom is best guaranteed by an entirely neutral public space.

    Does the author think that libertarians have not considered this option ? In libertarian philiopsophy it is up to those with legitimate land rights to do what they want with their land as long as they obey the harm principle. They can put up a church or an advertisement.

    If Alain de Botton’s ideas came anywhere near to reality he would find that he would run into problems as those resenting his intrusive nudges would hardly give way easily. An idea of the kind of problems that would be faced are illustrated by the following case

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…/

    As I understand it Holland had already pleaded guilty when liberty campaigners were alerted and found a way to unravel the case. I don’t know the rights and wrongs of that case. I do recognise, however, that any attempt to introduce the plans suggested would meet ideologically driven determined and sophisticated opponents with a deep understanding of the political system. It would end up like Major’s back to basics campaign

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B

    which ended ignominiously with the auto erotic asphyxiation of Stephen Milligan and the subsequent and permanent loss of the safe Conservative seat of Eastleigh. Ironically it was subsequently reported that Major had previously had an affair with Edwina Currie.

    It is true that humans do make bad decisions. The problem is that driving ‘deviancy from the norm’ underground leads to horrendous consequences as was seen in the Milligan case. Tolerance and honesty about who we are has turned out to be a better option in practice than the cilice and the confessional..

    I don’t believe that de Botton was presenting a consistent ideological view as can be seen by his final comment,

    It is not … very freeing ….. to do entirely as one pleases.

    I think we can safely assume this oxymoronic policy won’t easily be turned into law.


  9. Simon Goldie Says:

    Ed

    Just to let you know the register link isn’t working.

    Also, when you refer to the statement below which one do you mean? One of the responses to the post or the post itself?

    Simon


  10. Ed Joyce Says:

    When I say the statement below in the post I mean the statement following on

    As a libertarian I am tired of those with views contrary to those of self declared libertarians defining what libertarianism is or should be, as in the statement below
    [ie this is ‘the statement below’]
    A libertarian state truly worthy of the name would accept that our freedom is best guaranteed by an entirely neutral public space.

    The ‘frosties tiger’ case is interesting. I believe that it was the first case under the new ‘extreme pornography’ law.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/06/tiger_police/

    The point that I was trying to make was that ‘freedom constraining laws’ are not like laws against theft. They have people who are philosophically opposed to them (like those of this parish). In my experience freedom lovers tend to be very committed and often willing to commit time and funds. Some of them even have talents in the political arena (despite protests to the contrary !) This tends to lead to a poor result for those restricting freedom.


  11. Simon Goldie Says:

    Thanks for clarifying. I forgot that De Botton had written that.