When did we lose our right to be lazy, unhealthy, and politically incorrect? Move over Big Brother! An insidious new group has inserted itself into American politics. They are the nannies—not the stroller-pushing set but an invasive band of do-gooders who are subtly and steadily stripping us of our liberties, robbing us of the inalienable right to make our own decisions, and turning America into a nation of children. As you read this, countless busybodies across the nation are rolling up their sleeves to do the work of straightening out your life. Certain Massachusetts towns have banned school-yard tag. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. The mayor of New York City has french fries and doughnuts in his sights. In some parts of California, smoking is prohibited . . . outside. The government, under pressure from the nanny minority, is twisting the public’s arm into obedience. Playground police, food fascists, anti-porn crusaders —whether they're legislating morality or wellbeing—nannies are popping up all over America. In the name of health, safety, decency, and—shudder—good intentions, these ever-vigilant politicians and social activists are dictating what we eat, where we smoke, what we watch and read, and whom we marry. Why do bureaucrats think they know what's better for us than we do? And are they selectively legislating in the name of political expediency? For instance, why do we ban mini-motorbikes, responsible for five deaths each year, and not skiing, which accounts for fifty deaths each year? Why is medical marijuana, a substance yet to claim a single life, banned and not aspirin, which accounts for about 7,600 deaths? Exhaustively researched, sharply observed, and refreshingly lucid, Nanny Sate looks at the myriad ways we are turning the United States into a soulless and staid nation—eroding not only our personal freedoms but our national character.

'He is as funny as Bryson and as wise as Orwell' Observer It was the spirit of our finest hour, the backbone of our post-war greatness, and it promoted some of the boldest and most brilliant schemes this isle has ever produced: it was the Welfare State, and it made you and I. But now it's under threat, and we need to save it. In this timely and provocative book, Stuart Maconie tells Britain’s Welfare State story through his own history of growing up as a northern working class boy. What was so bad about properly funded hospitals, decent working conditions and affordable houses? And what was so wrong about student grants, free eye tests and council houses? And where did it all go so wrong? Stuart looks toward Britain’s future, making an emotional case for believing in more than profit and loss; and championing a just, fairer society.

In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of "nanny state" policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It's time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes - decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care. Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

From propaganda released by the Third Reich to legislation passed in more than fifty nations, smoking is one of society's favorite targets. While the public goes along with persecuting smokers, Theodore J. King is here to tell us why we shouldn't. In this book, which does not advocate smoking, King surveys smoking bans in the United States, England, and Ireland, documenting their effects on society and commerce. King interviews many people, including members of the medical community. King takes his arguments further, showing how and why bans on smoking extend to other areas of our lives-how smokers are only the beginning. Anti-smokers represent an agenda that involves everything from personal property to the way you raise your children, what you eat, and your right to freedom of speech. Authoritarians have willing accomplices in the press and government to take power at the individual's expense. Learn how anti-smoking fanatics use tobacco control as an effective form of social engineering. King offers solutions so that smokers and non-smokers can be accommodated in a free society, where it must never be a crime to smoke in a bar, in a car, in the open air, in a restaurant, or at home.

Should governments save people from themselves? Do governments have the right to influence citizens' behavior related to smoking tobacco, eating too much, not saving enough, drinking alcohol, or taking marijuana—or does this create a nanny state, leading to infantilization, demotivation, and breaches in individual autonomy? Looking at examples from both sides of the Atlantic and around the world, Government Paternalism examines the justifications for, and the prevalence of, government involvement and considers when intervention might or might not be acceptable. Building on developments in philosophy, behavioral economics, and psychology, Julian Le Grand and Bill New explore the roles, boundaries, and responsibilities of the government and its citizens. Le Grand and New investigate specific policy areas, including smoking, saving for pensions, and assisted suicide. They discuss legal restrictions on risky behavior, taxation of harmful activities, and subsidies for beneficial activities. And they pay particular attention to "nudge" or libertarian paternalist proposals that try to change the context in which individuals make decisions so that they make the right ones. Le Grand and New argue that individuals often display "reasoning failure": an inability to achieve the ends that they set themselves. Such instances are ideal for paternalistic interventions—for though such interventions might impinge on autonomy, the impact can be outweighed by an improvement in well-being. Government Paternalism rigorously considers whether the state should guide citizen decision making in positive ways and if so, how this should be achieved.

This collection of public information posters from the period 1945-75 is published in conjunction with the National Archives, where the original posters are located. The posters provide a fascinating insight into the policies and priorities of successive postwar governments, covering everything from the jobs people did, the food they ate, the amount of alcohol they drank and cigarettes they smoked to the wearing of motorcycle helmets and seat belts, road safety for children and keep Britain tidy campaigns.

Argues that laws that enforce what is good for the individual's well-being, or hinder what is bad, are morally justified.

Why the title, Freedom, Common Sense, and the Nanny State? Freedom is the individuals ability to choose. The more choices one has in life, the greater ones freedom. America is world-famous as the Land of the Free. Common sense is the stuff wise decisions are based upon. Freedom and common senseand lots of good, old-fashioned ingenuityhave built the greatest nation the world has ever known, the United States of America. But freedom can be frustrating, because it allows for philosophers and fools. And common sense is not as plentiful as one might hope. We Americans are currently embroiled in a continuing culture warself-reliance vs. Social Justice. Social Justice is liberal code for the Nanny Stategovernment supervision from cradle to grave. Where has freedom gone when a few bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., can dictate to more than 300 million Americans what kinds of light bulbs and toilets we can use, to the quality of health care we must accept? And where is the common sense in SPENDING our way out of bankruptcy? May freedom and common sense replace the Nanny State in America before it is too late.

American political history has been built around narratives of crisis, in which what “counts” are the moments when seemingly stable political orders collapse and new ones rise from the ashes. But while crisis-centered frameworks can make sense of certain dimensions of political culture, partisan change, and governance, they also often steal attention from the production of categories like race, gender, and citizenship status that transcend the usual break points in American history. Brent Cebul, Lily Geismer, and Mason B. Williams have brought together first-rate scholars from a wide range of subfields who are making structures of state power—not moments of crisis or partisan realignment—integral to their analyses. All of the contributors see political history as defined less by elite subjects than by tensions between state and economy, state and society, and state and subject—tensions that reveal continuities as much as disjunctures. This broader definition incorporates investigations of the crosscurrents of power, race, and identity; the recent turns toward the history of capitalism and transnational history; and an evolving understanding of American political development that cuts across eras of seeming liberal, conservative, or neoliberal ascendance. The result is a rich revelation of what political history is today.

Data, methods and theories of contemporary social science can be applied to resolve how political outcomes in democratic societies determine the quality of life that citizens experience. Radcliff seeks to provide an objective answer to the debate between left and right over what public policies best contribute to people leading positive and rewarding lives. Radcliff offers an empirical answer, relying on the same canons of reason and evidence required of any other issue amenable to study through social-scientific means. The analysis focuses on the consequences of three specific political issues: the welfare state and the general size of government, labor organization, and state efforts to protect workers and consumers through economic regulation. The results indicate that in each instance, the program of the Left best contributes to citizens leading more satisfying lives and, critically, that the benefits of greater happiness accrue to everyone in society, rich and poor alike.