Nanny stateism

There is an interesting nascent debate going on about whether the government is too involved in people's lives, the nanny state.  The main complaint is that the government passes and then enforces too many laws.  This happens in the same environment where many in society complain about the government not doing enough to help solve people's problems.  A recent example that comes to mind is the disappearance of a guy in the South Australian outback, with family and relatives complaining that the police didn't do enough to locate the missing man - that is this in an example where there is an expectation that the government should solve people's problems.  Of course the media are involved here.  They clamour for a leaner government, which will then be unable to be as involved in people's lives as it would if it, the government, was more resourced.  The media also clamours for government and its resources to solve the myriad of complex problems they catalogue, like this unsual example of the guy disappearing in the South Australian outback.

Today I was listening to a program on guns and gun control in Australia.  There was a 'beautiful', if that's the right word, example of how the government should be involved in people's lives.  The gun lobby urge for easier access to firearms (that is, a lessening of nanny stateism) while relying on police to be responsible for intervening when guns fall into the right hands.  As I say, this 'elegantly' sums up the idea of government taking a preventative stance to minimize of problem (guns), versus some in the community seeing government's role being to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, in this case to enforce the laws about gun use.