Moore M, Yeatman H, Davey R
University of Canberra, Australia.
University of Wollongong, Australia.
Public Health. 2015 Aug;129(8):1030-7. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.01.031. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
There is no option for avoiding the 'Nanny'. The only option for communities is to make sensible choices about which 'Nanny' will dominate their lives and at what time, which 'Nanny' will make us healthy and which 'Nanny' will undermine our health and our freedoms. Those political ideologues who use 'nanny statism' largely do so to further their own agenda and are invariably inconsistent in how they apply their concept of non-interference. Who's afraid of the 'Nanny State' is not the question should be asking. Rather the question ought to be--which Nanny should cause the greatest concern? The prime reason that the 'Nanny State' conjures fear is that it is a threat to the freedoms that are a key element of democratic societies. The tenet understood by the concept of the 'Nanny State' is that the more regulation that is made by the State, the more freedoms are whittled away and it is the intention of the wowsers, the teetotallers and the fun police to do so. It is time to rethink the 'nanny' concept, from the narrow sense of loss of individual freedoms (and one which favours 'free enterprise' and money making interests of big industry) to that which enables individuals and populations freedom from domination. Such a change particularly pertains to our understandings of the role of government. Pettit's work in framing the notion of freedom in terms of 'dominance' rather than 'interference' is pertinent. It provides a more realistic way in which to understand why industry uses the 'Nanny State' argument. It is to maintain its own dominance (i.e. in matters of public health) rather than allowing governments to interfere with that dominance. Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the 'Nanny State' phrase. This paper explores a series of examples which illustrate how public health is being undermined by the 'Nanny Industry' and how industry uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.
无法避免“保姆式国家”的存在。对于各个社区而言，唯一的选择是明智地决定哪种“保姆”将在何时主导他们的生活，哪种“保姆”会让我们保持健康，哪种“保姆”会损害我们的健康和自由。那些使用“保姆式国家干预主义”的政治空想家大多是为了推进他们自己的议程，而且在应用他们的不干涉概念时总是前后矛盾。我们不该问谁害怕“保姆式国家”。相反，问题应该是——哪种“保姆”最值得担忧？“保姆式国家”引发恐惧的主要原因在于它对民主社会的关键要素——自由构成了威胁。“保姆式国家”这一概念所蕴含的宗旨是，国家制定的监管措施越多，人们的自由就被削减得越多，而那些极端拘谨的人、禁酒主义者和趣味警察正是有意如此。现在是时候重新思考“保姆”概念了，从狭义的个人自由丧失（这种狭义概念偏袒“自由企业”以及大企业的逐利利益）转变为让个人和民众摆脱被支配的自由。这样的转变尤其关乎我们对政府角色的理解。佩蒂特从“支配”而非“干涉”的角度构建自由概念的研究很有意义。它为理解为何企业利用“保姆式国家”论调提供了一种更现实的方式。企业这么做是为了维持自身的主导地位（即在公共卫生事务方面），而不是让政府干涉这种主导地位。“保姆式国家”这个说法经常破坏公共卫生宣传工作。本文探讨了一系列例子，说明公共卫生是如何被“保姆式行业”破坏的，以及该行业如何利用人们对政府监管的恐惧来维持自身的主导地位、获取利润，而这给社区和公共卫生带来了巨大的经济和社会成本。
