> But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" Well, anyb

> But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" Well, anybody is going to do that, even the author of this piece, so your observation does not give you as much insight as you seem to think, even if accurate (which it is not e.g. I would not classify overbroad copyright legislation into the 'nanny state' category, even though I think it makes for shitty policy). > As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher gun control laws in Australia. No, it is not completely different: both are instances of the governing class adopting policies formed from a mindset that they know better the morality that the people should adopt as they go about their lives. They believe partying into the early hours is wrong, and they give this away with the victim-blaming nonsense and misleading statistics, if not outright lies, they offer regarding crime in Sydney, which this article rightly tears down. Likewise, the Australian government (and most other national governments) would have you believe that owning a gun is morally wrong, and the data they use to support this assertion are generally about as convincing as the arguments made to support these ridiculous restrictions on nightlife in Sydney. Indeed, anyone who has participated in or even observed a gun control "debate" should be pretty familiar with the sort of statistical dirty tricks perpetrated here by the City of Sydney. At any rate, as an aside, in the future try to keep the ratio of strawmen to sentences in your post somewhere south of 1:1. It's not just that it's irritating to the person reading it - it also weakens your argument: your assertion of what I think makes a nanny state, and your implication about my political philosophy, are both widely off the mark.