Your Body Is Not A Government Laboratory

Your body is not government property. Adults have the right to make their own health decisions, even when politicians disagree with them.

Photo by Julia Koblitz on Unsplash

Written By: Matsheole Majoro

A smoking ban is extended to outdoor patios. A suggested law would fine parents/guardians whose children have a BMI over a certain limit. Each guideline is sold as public health, however, it is public control. The nanny state doesn’t seek permission – it assumes consent.

Classical liberalism starts with an easy proposition: adults own their own bodies. That ownership is inclusive of the right to make flawed choices: to consume sugar; to ignore exercise; to smoke; to deny vaccines. The state may communicate, convince, and alert; and in limited cases mandate truthful disclosure- but it may not ban or compel individual choices. Coercion is coercion even when concealed in a white coat.

The nanny state has mastered the art of beneficent overreach; every directive is warranted by statistic. Smoking causes lung cancer. Sugar fuels diabetes. The are all true. But more fundamentally, that these statements are true does not give politicians the power to control what an adult chooses to put in their own body. If the rationale were consistent, the state would also prohibit alcohol, which causes quantifiable harm.

Public health directives also fail on their own terms. Smoking bans drive business to unsupervised black markets where product quality is unknown; coercion creates contrary motivation. Markets and education do not.

The classical liberal fallback is not lawlessness – it is to allow people to exercise their free will with information. State-funded public health campaigns are appropriate if they are honest and voluntary. Warning labels inform choice. Calorie count on food items inform choice; none of these force anyone to change attitudes. Private intermediaries already compensate healthier ways of living with lower premiums; that is a market solution, not a mandate.

Some debate that public health is different because one person’s bad choices cost others through the healthcare system; this is a common interventionist trap. If the rationale is implemented fairly, the state should prohibit the riding of motorbikes. The candid answer is self-responsibility accompanied by voluntary insurance. No one is forced to join the public healthcare system. People who make precarious choices can pay higher private premiums – that is freedom with responsibility.

The World Health Organisation pushes “best buys” that always include taxes and bans. Global health officials treat people as variables to be optimised, not as right-bearing agents. The nanny state is not a South African creation; it is a global ideology that treats freedom as an issue to be handled rather than a principle to be defended.

What would a classical liberal health strategy look like? First, it would revoke lifestyle directives. No smoking bans in private establishments. No forced vaccinations. Secondly, fund independent, non-political health information that presents benefits and risks without coercion. Third, trust adults to choose.

The rebuttal from nanny state defenders is always patronising: people lack enough information or willpower. Therefore, experts must decide. But this debate collapses upon scrutiny; the same experts who ban smoking accept alcohol advertising. Public health directives are never neutral. They mirror the preferences of whoever holds authority at the moment. A conservative state bans drugs. A progressive state bans sugar; neither asks for consent. Neither respects self-rule.

Markets already give a superior path: private gyms contend on price and quality. Health apps track meals without compulsion. Ethical consumerism allows people to avoid businesses that sell sugary drinks or tobacco without calling for police coercion. These are the quiet successes of selflessness. They do not make bulletins because no one is coerced, fined or arrested. But they work. Every directive revoked is a small win for a free society.

Freedom is not the absence of risk. Freedom is the right to take your own risks; a free society comprises of people who make decisions you do not like. It involves individuals who live shorter lives by their own choices. That’s not a fluke; that is the entire point of individual autonomy. The nanny state proposes safety at the price of compliance – classical liberalism offers dignity instead.

Matsheole Majoro is a final year Bachelor of Arts in International Relations student and an Associate of the Free Market Foundation.