In 1980, Lord Harold Balfour of Inchrye took the podium in the House of the Lords, declaring, “[T]he vote tonight will be to remove the right of the citizen to make his own decision! Let the citizens decide for themselves this issue… rather than have a nanny state, and all that goes with the restrictions of liberty. This is one more step in restricting the liberty of the citizens of this country, and I hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill tonight.” Engaging in one of the most heated debates of the time, Balfour was regarded as one of the remaining stewards of liberty, guarding the English people against the “nanny state” and its restrictive advocates.

This rhetoric echoes through today’s most volatile political battlegrounds: social media regulation, environmental protections, and public health mandates. However, adding even minimal context to Lord Balfour’s speech would make even anti-vax activists and climate change deniers scoff: this energized tirade was given in opposition to a bill that would require the wearing of a seat belt in cars. 

The term nanny state was coined by Iain Macleod, a British Conservative politician, to criticize the 110 kilometers per hour speed limit on roads. However, today, we see that this same type of rhetoric has left English automobiles and stepped into the American public health scene. In 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters, and street carts. Critics immediately labeled him “Nanny Bloomberg.” The beverage industry ran full-page ads in the New York Times depicting him dressed as a literal “nanny” (an old woman in a dress and bonnet) with the headline: “New Yorkers Need a Mayor, Not a Nanny.” Bloomberg’s attempt to curb a debilitating obesity epidemic was smothered by industry titans. They weaponized the same libertarian “freedom” argument Balfour used for seatbelts, framing a public health safeguard as an assault on personhood. 

This argument has flourished even further despite slowly outgrowing the label of “nanny state.” Environmental regulations to mitigate climate change, vaccine mandates to bolster national health and support vulnerable populations, ongoing nutrition battles to provide people with fresh and healthy alternatives, and gun regulation bills aiming to keep weapons out of the hands of malicious actors all face equally illogical and dangerous descendants of Macleod’s creation. 

Environmental deregulationists seem to turn a blind eye to the imminent threats that these regulations are trying to avert. “My body, my choice,” a phrase anti-vax activists appropriated from the pro-choice movement, fully ignores the fact that the vaccine mandates they fight help themselves and those around them. Lawmakers advocating for ultra-processed and high-sugar foods to remain accessible are blind to the nearly half a million excess deaths caused by diabetes and obesity per year. Groups calling to block background checks and allow all those who desire a gun to have it immediately disregard the terror of school shootings.  

It is time to ask if these superficial freedoms Lord Balfour and his modern counterparts advocate for are really freedoms or just facades to resist public health betterment.
True freedom lies in being able to breathe air and drink water without worrying if it is contaminated, not in oil barons being able to pursue their ventures. 

True freedom lies in vulnerable populations confidently going out knowing they won’t catch a terminal illness, not the choice of vaccination. 

True freedom lies in students growing up on nutritious meals and free of diabetes, not in beverage conglomerates being able to grow their profits. 

True freedom lies in students being able to go to school without even contemplating the possibility of an armed criminal stealing their lives. 

True freedom lay on December 15, 1980, in protecting English citizens driving cars. The House of Lords ignored fearmongers like Balfour who said otherwise. If current movements inherit the irrationality and disregard for the true nature of liberty as Balfour did, we must inherit the clarity and logic of the House of Lords that rejected him.