It's sometimes said that the nanny state and the welfare state are two sides of the same coin. Because the state, via the taxpayer, funds healthcare, it is said to be reasonable for government to dictate our diets and exercise regime.  A similar sort of argument applies to the government's plans to extend the school leaving age for those who have no job to go to, which have so irked Fabian Tassano.

Fabian seems absolutely clear on this issue - to his mind it is abhorrent and wrong for the state to dictate to people in this way. But to me the answer to the question of whether government should dictate school leaving ages is not an obvious one. If the taxpayer is to support these people, is it not right that they should also demand that the recipients of this largesse should actually do something useful with the money - like study?

Don't get me wrong - if I were running the country the taxpayer wouldn't be supporting these people at all. It's just to say that if I am forced to pay to feed someone who can't or won't support themselves, should I be fighting for their right to sit on their backsides doing nothing?

I don't mean to say that Fabian is wrong. Just that I need convincing that he's right.