'Nanny laws' chip away at freedom

BY ADAM B. SUMMERS, Guest Columnist
LA Daily News

THERE is a domestic emergency, of sorts, in California these days. Unlike the popular television shows, however, the nanny is the problem, not the solution. No, California's problem is much worse than a misbehaving toddler; it is the overzealous politician (and those nosy neighbors who support them). Some might call these audacious au pairs petty tyrants, but they are tyrants nonetheless.

Having failed to resolve such serious problems of the day as the state's structural budget deficit, crumbling infrastructure, declining public education, and public-pension funding crises, impetuous politicians have taken it upon themselves to decide for us what kind of light bulbs we should buy, what kind of food we should eat, and even that ever-present grocery store conundrum: paper or plastic?

More >>

Nanny state's bright idea: ban the light bulb

Ross Gittins
The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

IT'S surprising how little criticism there's been of Malcolm Turnbull's plan to phase out incandescent light bulbs. It's no surprise there's been no complaint from the punters, of course, but what about the economic rationalists and the libertarians?

Talk about high-handed intervention in a free market by the nanny state. Where are the warriors of the Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs when we need them to defend our liberties?

Why the direct resort to command-and-control? If switching to compact fluorescent lights is such a good idea, why not start with less coercive measures? A voluntary industry code of practice, for instance. Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

More...