Whether the latest government dispute stems from low approval ratings, stalled cooperation or ideological disagreements, one thing is clear: the understanding of overregulation differs significantly among those in power. While some fear Estonia is turning into a nanny state, others cannot comprehend how caring for people could be seen as a negative. This reflects a deep ideological and cultural divide.

The term "nanny state" is typically used critically to describe a situation where the government treats adults like children, assuming they need constant supervision and are incapable of making responsible decisions. In such cases, the state intervenes excessively in citizens' personal choices, imposing regulations and restrictions designed to prevent any possible harm.

How far should the government go in protecting citizens from their own choices? Are mandatory health requirements, advertising restrictions and taxes on unhealthy products excessive regulation or responsible governance? For instance, are speed limits justified because they protect all road users? But if seat belts and helmets primarily serve personal safety, is making them mandatory a case of overreach? Is the role of the state to impose obligations or rather to educate and inform?

Recently, an Estonian small-scale producer found itself in the crosshairs of consumer protection authorities for making candles that resembled strawberry macarons in appearance and scent. In the European Union, selling candles and soaps that look like food is prohibited. I understand that the primary concern is preventing risks to children. But dangers to children exist everywhere — should the state take over the role of parents in such cases? Moreover, every regulation carries both direct and indirect costs: someone must monitor compliance and someone must enforce it.

There is even a Nanny State Index (NSI), which measures restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, e-cigarettes, food and soft drinks. In the 2023 ranking, Estonia placed seventh among 30 European countries, indicating a relatively high level of restrictions.

However, the accuracy of such indices should be approached critically. For example, according to this index, Estonia supposedly has a tax on sugary drinks, but in reality, the president refused to sign the law in 2017 and the tax never took effect. True, the issue resurfaced in parliament last year, but the government eventually withdrew the proposal.

It is also essential to recognize that cultures and traditions regarding limiting personal freedoms and state care vary greatly between countries. In Germany, for example, there is no general speed limit on highways because unrestricted driving holds historical, cultural and economic significance. At the same time, Germany has strict hate speech laws and penalties. While most countries regulate smoking in public places, tobacco advertising or sales in some way, New Zealand last year completely banned the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009.

While Estonia debates whether schools should limit smartphone use, several Asian countries have restricted children's access to online games even at home. In China, minors can only play online games for one hour a day on Fridays, weekends and public holidays. In South Korea, minors were previously banned from playing online games between midnight and 6 a.m. to support their sleep schedules. However, in 2021, the ban was lifted to respect children's rights and strengthen the role of parents in upbringing.

The state's role is to protect its citizens and promote societal well-being, but at the same time, freedom is one of democracy's core principles. Not every regulation turns a society into a nanny state, but the more the government regulates personal choices, the greater the risk of losing the balance between freedom and protection.

The line between overregulation and responsible governance is thin and the perception of the right balance is often passionately driven by values and beliefs. Even though we have clear, evidence-based knowledge that smoking is harmful both to smokers and those around them, we have not completely banned smoking out of respect for personal freedoms. We have the right and the ability to shape regulations in our country to fit our needs and values. And we don't have to follow every trend happening elsewhere.

The original article was published on 10/03/2025 in ERR