by Gene Denardo

Created on: July 04, 2009   Last Updated: July 12, 2009

All governments control the personal behaviour of its citizens. Government is defined as "a monopoly of force within a region", so one must expect the obvious. The degree to which a particular government controls behavior determines the type of government and the amount of individual freedom present in the nation. A Totalitarian government will attempt to control every element of an individual's life while a Mini-Anarchist type government may leave most all decisions up to its individuals and other than a few basic areas such as national defense, let them fend for themselves. Most governments fall somewhere in between the two extremes.

When we bring the concept of "manipulation" into the mix, we begin to classify the "type" of control that a particular government uses to modify its citizen's behaviour. Instead of outright mandates, a manipulative government might "suggest" particular behavior or "discourage" certain behavior. The comparison might be an outright legal ban on smoking cigarettes anywhere backed up with fines or even imprisonment to "prohibiting" smoking in certain areas, such as entrances to buildings, with small fines or warnings imposed for the infraction. One is an example of blatant control by an authority that has the power to coerce if necessary, the other an attempt to influence behaviour by separating the behaviour from normal permitted activity [utilizing an entrance] and imposing a small punishment, much as a parent might do.

A government that attempts to manipulate its citizen's behaviour is often referred to as a nanny state. The term suggests the government is venturing into areas that should be the concern of the parents or guardians, not the government. But, if the citizens are engaging in behaviour that is detrimental to their health or well being, is there a role for the government to play? Should the government fill in when it deems necessary to take up the slack for parents and other figures of authority who don't seem to be doing their job?

An assumption that brings clarity to this issue is accepting the tenet that government will only intervene in its citizen's behaviour when the behaviour in question brings harm and injury to other citizens. Any personal behaviour that only brings injury to oneself should be accepted as part of our personal liberties and not under the domain of the government or collective rule. Conversely, control of behaviour that only affects the health and well being of the perpetrator is a loss of

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>