NationStates Jolt Archive

Here're two article that caught my eye recently:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6768159
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6772346

I will bet one line in my sig for a month this either sinks with less than 30 replies or devolves into an off topic flame fest....

I agree with John Stewart Mill on this: "Mill's answer was that the state should repress a man's acts only if they harm others. Harm to himself alone was not a good enough reason for the state to limit his freedom."

Paternalism breeds dependence. Dependence degrades independence. The loss of independence of thought and deed breeds greater dependence; a vicious cycle which ends in tyranny for all.

I caught these articles a little while ago and almost posted them myself. For some ideas, it only makes sense. Default options aren't inherently wrong. People still have an option to back out.

It seems to go a little far in some scenario's however, but it's better than 'hard paternalism'.

I agree with John Stewart Mill on this: "Mill's answer was that the state should repress a man's acts only if they harm others. Harm to himself alone was not a good enough reason for the state to limit his freedom."

Paternalism breeds dependence. Dependence degrades independence. The loss of independence of thought and deed breeds greater dependence; a vicious cycle which ends in tyranny for all.
Agreed 100%. The slippery slope rule applies quite well here.

So, would banning smoking be going too far?


Positing that there does exist some medical harm from second hand smoke.

The links aren't working!

EDIT: nm, now they are

In this particular instance, isn't it only soft paternalism until the person in question decides they want off the list? At that point, doesn't it become hard paternalism, barring them from entering casinos despite their wishes?

In this particular instance, isn't it only soft paternalism until the person in question decides they want off the list? At that point, doesn't it become hard paternalism, barring them from entering casinos despite their wishes?
They put themselves on the list.

They put themselves on the list.

I understand that, and I understand that they do so knowing there's no way off the list. But if they do change their mind, and want off the list, they're stuck. At that point the government is forcing them into something they don't want for their own good. It's no longer soft at that point.

I understand that, and I understand that they do so knowing there's no way off the list. But if they do change their mind, and want off the list, they're stuck. At that point the government is forcing them into something they don't want for their own good. It's no longer soft at that point.
I'd imagine that there is some way off of the list. However, I still wouldn't consider it hard paternalism as it is voluntary to start with - I have little sympathy for someone who signs up for something and then attempts to fold on his promises.

So, would banning smoking be going too far?


Positing that there does exist some medical harm from second hand smoke.


Exactly, banning smoking ( in "public places") is in the interest of passive smokers. So no, it wouldn't apply, it is not because one is harming himself, it is because he is inadvertly (or not) harming others.

I agree with John Stewart Mill on this: "Mill's answer was that the state should repress a man's acts only if they harm others. Harm to himself alone was not a good enough reason for the state to limit his freedom."

Paternalism breeds dependence. Dependence degrades independence. The loss of independence of thought and deed breeds greater dependence; a vicious cycle which ends in tyranny for all.
I agree. I see US society in particular going down a road to greater and greater conformity and obedience to external authorities -- often without even demanding to see the authority's ID. Every day, the authorities turn out to be making a profit off people's complacent willingness to do what they are told. It's hard not to see how horribly wrong this can go.

I was especially struck by these two parts of the articles:

Economist - Article
But if such manipulation is sometimes a necessity, should it be made a virtue? Mill, for one, would have disapproved.

He who lets the world choose...his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself must...use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision.

Reasoning, judgment, discrimination and self-control—all of these the soft paternalists see as burdens the state can and should lighten. Mill, by contrast, saw them as opportunities for citizens to exercise their humanity. Soft paternalism may improve people's choices, rescuing them from their own worst tendencies, but it does nothing to improve those tendencies. The nephews of the avuncular state have no reason to grow up.

Economist - Leader
Yet from the point of view of liberty, there is a serious danger of overreach, and therefore grounds for caution. Politicians, after all, are hardly strangers to the art of framing the public's choices and rigging its decisions for partisan ends. And what is to stop lobbyists, axe-grinders and busybodies of all kinds hijacking the whole effort? There is, admittedly, a safety valve. People remain free to reject the choices soft paternalism tries to guide them into—that is what is distinctive about it. But though people will still have this freedom, most won't bother to use it—that is what makes soft paternalism work. For all its potential, and its advantage over paternalism of the hard sort, this is a tool that transfers power from the individual to the state, which only sometimes knows best.


No matter how beneficial the results of this "soft paternalism" may be claimed to be, it is still the state taking power over the human right of self-determination. And governments change all the time. A benificent ruler can easily be replaced by a malevolent one, who now has the same power to harm that the other had to help. Better not to create the power at all.

I'd imagine that there is some way off of the list. However, I still wouldn't consider it hard paternalism as it is voluntary to start with - I have little sympathy for someone who signs up for something and then attempts to fold on his promises.
Why should we have to get promises from people anyway? Why can't we have "hard paternalism" in this case, and direct it at the casinos? Casinos have the right to ban people from their properties. If the state enacts laws that (a) reward casinos for banning addicts and (b) punish casinos for exploiting addicts and require them to undergo spot supervision by state inspectors in order to keep their licenses, then any casino that thinks a player has a problem (and they would be in a position to observe carefully) or is informed of a player's problem by the player or his/her family, will have an incentive to ban that person.

Frankly, I think an important part of this particular case of "soft paternalism" -- where the players put themselves on a banned list -- is very convenient for the casinos because they don't have to police their own business and can go on making money off the really hardcore addicts who aren't trying to help themselves.

If the casinos don't want to be responsible for judging whether a person's behavior is self-destructive, they could simply put limits on how much a player can gamble in any one night, across the board, for everyone, no exceptions. Any player who has to be cut off too many times in a month, for instance, will be banned for life. Automatic.

Of course, this would mean the casinos would have to moderate their income expectations, but do we really want to blame individuals for their personal problems while putting no limitations on a business that exploits those very problems, to the point of absolute ruin of people's lives, in the name of unlimited profits? I guess I'm really just more interested in punishing the pusher than the junkie.