The New, Soft Paternalism

New York Times ^ | 12/3/06 | Jim Holt

[traviskicks]

When the government tells you that you can’t smoke marijuana or that you must wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle even if you happen to like the feeling of the wind in your hair, it is being paternalistic. It is largely treating you the way a parent treats a child, restricting your liberty for what it deems to be your own good. Paternalistic laws aren’t very popular in this country. We hew to the principle that, children and the mentally ill apart, an individual is a better judge of what’s good for him than the state is and that people should be free to do what they wish as long as their actions don’t harm others. Contrary to what many people believe, you can even commit suicide legally (although if you don’t live in Oregon, you should think twice about seeking assistance).

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

These are queried from a strictly conservative secular viewpoint.

Being concerned about efficient public assisstance and workers comp is "conservative"? That is, your grant the legitimacy of liberal programs by thinking it is "conservative" to minimize them by allowing the government to regulate behavior as well? In other words, the government created the problems, i.e. the programs and, since you can't get rid of them, i.e. solve the problems, you want the government to patch them up by restricting liberty, i.e. create new problems. That may reduce your burden on those programs so that government can create another program with the savings but, my friend, that ain't "conservative."

[mugs99]

Question is, how do these behaviors negatively affect society at large? Do they increase my insurance premiums? Do they increase the roles of those on public assistance? Do they increase Workers Comp costs? Do they increase the likelihood of OTJ injuries, or reduced quality of shipped goods? Will it increase the likelihood of harm to innocent bystanders (eg DUI)?

The needs of society are greater than the rights of the individual?

These are queried from a strictly conservative secular viewpoint.

The concept of the fasces will be the downfall of American liberty...IMHO
. .

[traviskicks]

Done! Welcome aboard!

[jimmyray]

Not all of my comments were concerning government programs, but also related to private sector concerns. Would you support the removal of all restrictions on self destructive liberty? Consider, No man is an Island.

[ellery]

People who smoke, eat unhealthily, don't exercise, etc. don't actually tend to cause signficantly higher health care spending over a lifetime. They tend to get sick more often, and get costly life-threatening conditions (cancer, heart disease, etc.), but to be blunt, they also tend to die earlier (thus saving health care $$). People who live very healthily tend to get sick less often, but they also get costly old-age related life-threatening illnesses (cancer, heart disease, etc.), and also tend to live longer (thus draining years more health care dollars).

As for the other issues (more people on welfare, etc.), the problem is not too much freedom -- it's too many government programs that repeatedly insulate people from their poor decisions.

I agree with you in general -- I have no problem with people being held responsible for their free choices; in fact, I demand it. I do have a problem with government restricting freedom "for our own good."

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Would you support the removal of all restrictions on self destructive liberty? Consider, No man is an Island.

He's a peninsula ;-)

Yes I would. Personal choices should be influenced by other societal forces besides government or there is no limit to the tyrrany. But I would not let government subsidize or enable it either. The sooner some people hit bottom, the sooner others will curb their own excesses.