Why we need an overarching government:
Sarah Conly, an assistant professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, is the author of “Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism.”One of the myriad problems with "logic" like that is that it only works when the "right" people are in charge, when the "right" people know what's best for you. I think it would be best if students said the Pledge of Allegiance in school each day, but I doubt Sarah would agree. When the "wrong" people are in charge, I'm sure Sarah would argue that their laws are too painful, too burdensome, just plain wrong.
A lot of times we have a good idea of where we want to go, but a really terrible idea of how to get there. It’s well established by now that we often don’t think very clearly when it comes to choosing the best means to attain our ends. We make errors. This has been the object of an enormous amount of study over the past few decades, and what has been discovered is that we are all prone to identifiable and predictable miscalculations...
So do these laws mean that some people will be kept from doing what they really want to do? Probably — and yes, in many ways it hurts to be part of a society governed by laws, given that laws aren’t designed for each one of us individually. Some of us can drive safely at 90 miles per hour, but we’re bound by the same laws as the people who can’t, because individual speeding laws aren’t practical. Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws.The freedom to buy a really large soda, all in one cup, is something we stand to lose here. For most people, given their desire for health, that results in a net gain. For some people, yes, it’s an absolute loss. It’s just not much of a loss.
Of course, what people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it’s soda, tomorrow it’s the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch “PBS NewsHour” every day. What this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis: if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law. Making these analyses is something the government has the resources to do, just as now it sets automobile construction standards while considering both the need for affordability and the desire for safety.
I wonder if she supports abortion....
You live your life your way, I'll live my life my way, and lots not impinge on each other any more than is absolutely necessary. That is freedom, and I'm all for it.
Update: This sums it up for me:
I want a "leave me alone" society -- one where Christian schools can turn people away for rejecting their doctrine, just as gay rights groups can reject those who don't share their beliefs. I don't want us all to get along -- not because I'm misanthropic (well, not just because I'm misanthropic), but because I know that "consensus" is usually a fancy word for muting minority viewpoints. I want us all to be free to be annoyed with each other from our separate corners. Is that too much to ask?In other words, I support tolerance. I'll tolerate you and your dumb ideas as long as you don't try to impose those dumb ideas on me.
Update #2, 4/3/13: Here's a great post on the food police:
I am reading a new book by professor Jayson Lusk titled The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate. The author is tired of the food socialists coming after trans-fats, Happy Meals, Twinkies, and soda. The book seeks to debunk “the myths propagated by the holier-than-thou foodie elite who think they know exactly what we should grow, cook, and eat"...
It is a dangerous dynamic and one that feeds into power for the political class at the expense of the individual. Those of us who believe in freedom must fight for Happy Meals, Twinkies, and, yes, even the occasional trans-fats, for the food police are more dangerous than these.
12 comments:
Why do you think it would be best if students said the Pledge of Allegiance in school each day?
For the same reason the author thinks banning large soft drinks is entirely reasonable--I think it makes for better people.
Now, do you want me imposing my views on others?
Implicit in professor Conly's case for a coercively paternalist government is that there are, to paraphrase the old joke, coercers and coercees. I trust there's no great amount of effort necessary to deduce which role professor Conly sees for herself.
Exactly my point.
I understand how limiting portion size could be desirable especially with how our brains are wired to eat and perceive value in ways that are often detrimental, but I don't see how saying the Pledge of Allegiance makes for better people. I'm just at a loss at how reciting words makes people better. I'm not saying either thing should be law, I'm just interested in your opinion that the recitation of words "makes for better people." I personally feel that requiring that kind of heavy-handed oath breeds more contempt for our country and government than letting The United States of America and it's constitution stand on their own merits. If it isn't clear that the United States of America and the Constitution are just and a fantastic compromise of freedoms, our educational system is failing in ways that a loyalty oath isn't going to help.
My justification isn't really the point. The point is if you really support "coercive paternalism", you have to be ready to accept what is forced on you when the "wrong" people are in power.
I'm all for "that government is best which governs least", and all that.
"You live your life your way, I'll live my life my way, and let's try not to impinge on each other as mush as possible. That's my definition of freedom, and I'm all for it."
Except for the fact that that's exactly the Libertarian mission statement, and you don't vote for them. You do vote for Republicans, who are all for impinging upon you -- just like Democrats do in other areas. In exactly what way, for example, do the new Republican led anti-abortion laws in North Dakota allow women (currently protected by Roe v. Wade) to live their lives their way?
Some of us believe that abortion is killing another human. Do you have a problem with preventing someone from killing someone else?
And no, I don't vote for the libertarians, although I do have some libertarian leanings. Why don't I? Because they're too extreme.
"I personally feel that requiring that kind of heavy-handed oath breeds more contempt for our country and government..."
And telling them what light bulbs they can buy, what foods they cannot eat and how much soda they can drink won't breed contempt?
Well at least using CFLs saves energy, drinking pasteurized milk prevents diseases, and limiting soda portions reduces diabetes. I'll take results and contempt over just contempt any day of the week. :)
In response to Darren, again my position vs. your position on "coercive paternalism" wasn't the basis of my interest or confusion, it was in your specific example of the Pledge of Allegiance, so for me your justification was the point of what I was talking about.
Ah. If I could summarize your argument, "The ends justify the means." Perhaps you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet?
Darren ... Every libertarian believes killing another human being is wrong. The problem is ... a just impregnated egg is not a human. It has no capability of life outside the womb, it can't take care of itself, it has no ability to do anything. It is a potential human being. But, So is the unfertilized egg that is flushed out during menstruation; so is the sperm lost through protected sex and masturbation. The question is: when does that potential human deserve legal protection as a human? I think most of us who aren't Catholic would not try to make the argument that women shouldn't be allowed to menstruate, or men to masturbate. My line is ... if the fetus is viable, outside the womb, you can't abort. That is undoubtedly further than you want, but it is entirely a gray area. To me, the better tack to take is to try to make abortion unnecessary.
As to Libertarians being too extreme? Yes, sometimes. Not wanting troops anywhere? Probably too strong. Open borders, all the time? Not my cup of tea. But ... their extreme views will never get passed, because the Rs and Ds will check them. On the other hand, they bring a lot of ideas to the table that might fit our nation better. The Republicans clearly have nothing to offer at this point ... and I guarantee you that no Republican not named Rand Paul will win the White House in '16.
Post a Comment