Non-Libertarian Anti-Paternalism

Julian Sanchez | January 27, 2005

I'd been meaning to comment on this Matt Yglesias post on paternalism. Matt says:

[An] important thing to do is to separate questions about paternalism from other issues about the legitimate bounds of state power. Many people believe it is illegitimate to use the coercive authority of the state in order to help people buy, for example, taxing some people in order to give food to starving people. If you believe that you should, naturally enough, also oppose efforts at state paternalism. But most people who object to collective charity ventures of that sort have no problem with charity as an individual initiative, and many even believe there is an obligation to act charitably on an individual basis. If you believe that, you ought to also believe in a duty to practice paternalism on an individual level, trying to dissuade people from making bad choices about their lives. If, like a normal person, you think it's legitimate -- and, indeed, obligatory -- to use the coercive power of the state in order to help people, then you should also find it obligatory to deploy the coercive power of the state for paternalistic purposes when pragmatically appropriate.

Seems to me that Matt is making precisely the error here he cautions us against at the start. He seems to be attempting to establish that if you're a non-libertarian liberal (i.e. don't object to redistribution to help people) then you shouldn't object to (coercive) paternalistic intervention with people's lives in service of the same end. Liberals of both varieties will probably agree with the idea that there's a personal obligation both to materially help the badly off and to (non coercively) advise people we see about to make poor decisions. The mistake Matt makes is to take the question of whether these obligations are coercively enforceable, part of the scope of justly exercised political power, as a bundle. I doubt I could improve upon the formulation of the distinction offered by one of Matt's old profs, Robert Nozick:

[My argument against redistribution] focuses upon the fact that there are distinct individuals each with his own life to lead....It will prohibit sacrificing one person to benefit another. Further steps would be needed to reach a prohibition on paternalistic aggression: using or threating force for the benefit of the person against whom it is wielded. For this, one must focus upon the fact that there are distinct individuals, each with his own life to lead.

In short, there's an autonomy/identity argument to be made against paternalism that's distinct from the separateness of persons argument. There are, however, independent grounds for treating the cases separately. Like left-libertarians or, for that matter, very many sharp liberal theorists, one might simply have a view that doesn't link control over wealth and physical resources as tightly to individual autonomy as the libertarian view does. Someone might believe, for instance, that the external world constitutes the common heritage of mankind, or some such thing, so that rights over it are much weaker and more conditional than rights over the self. The idea that opposition to paternalism is somehow narrowly or uniquely libertarian just doesn't pass the straight face test, and someone as well schooled as Matt in the history of liberal theory should know better than to advance it.

Comments

|1.27.05 @ 4:23PM|#

Good Article about the masssive growth of our federal government. If the "conservative" Republicans could hold down spending, the defecit would not be a problem. Instead of tax-and-spend liberals, we have spend-and-spend conservatives who could care less about the budget. The Washington Post has a few good words on the subject.

|1.27.05 @ 4:46PM|#

My favorite line: "If, like a normal person, you think it's legitimate -- and, indeed, obligatory -- to use the coercive power of the state in order to help people..."

This is a logical and argumentative fallacy. First of all, it suffers from the problem of being too broad with the "to help people" line. What constitutes "helping people"? Does the drug war "help people"? The problem here is that "help", in terms of government intervention, is infinitely undefineable.

Secondly, he kills the statement with an assertion that is not necessarily true: that only "normal" people believe in the coercive power of the government to help people. First of all, let's not get into a discussion about the subjective definition of "normal". The real problem is that he is attempting to use the rhetorical trick of assuming a debateable point to be universally true and beyond debate, and thus, attempting to automatically paint anyone who disagrees with him as "abnormal". This, to be quite frank, is bull-sheeeeit.

|1.27.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Charity implies grace, and perhaps a personal sense of obligation or duty, but this sense must come from within or it is not charity. The word "paternalism" implies being a father. But a father's obligation goes way beyond the mere giving of alms and advice and punishments and rawards; it also implies the grace and courage to eventually let go. If you won't let go, the proper term is not "paternalism", it is "codependency".

|1.27.05 @ 4:59PM|#

Evan,
I saw the same "normal" person line and chuckled. I was a breath away from believing that "of course we should help people. And obviously the government and forced coersion is the most helpful. What was *I* thinking?"

But, like all abnormal folk, I promptly re-lost my mind just before being cured.

|1.27.05 @ 5:04PM|#

In Matt's defense: All Xs believe Y doesn't entail that ONLY Xs believe Y. Anyway, I let that go because that's just Matt tweaking his libertarian friends, the point is that his argument's addressed to people (whether normal or not) who DO believe government is entitled (and obligated) to help people via redistribution. There are plenty of those folks, and many of them are unlikely to be talked out of that belief, so I think it's worthwhile to establish that it doesn't further commit them to supporting paternalism.

John T. Kennedy|1.27.05 @ 5:29PM|#

"Liberals of both varieties will probably agree with the idea that there's a personal obligation both to materially help the badly off and to (non coercively) advise people we see about to make poor decisions."

Why is there an obligation?

|1.27.05 @ 5:46PM|#

John-
It doesn't matter; it's a premise I'm granting for the purpose of seeing whether Matt's conclusion follows.

|1.27.05 @ 6:39PM|#

Julian,

I didn't quite reach the same conclusion that you did.

But I got stuck on this sentence in Matt's post: "That perfectly normal adult human beings often fail to act in their own best long-term interests is clear and well known."

Fine. But that is also true of organizations.

And it is also true that humans often fail to act in their own best short-term best interests. The implication that "own best interest" usually means long-term is nonsense. Perfectly normal adult human beings are usually aware that if they want something today, that means they may not get something tomorrow.

fyodor|1.27.05 @ 6:42PM|#

I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not entirely sure what y'all talking about here but I think it comes down to Yglesias saying that if we accept that person A is obliged to help person B and can therefore be coerced into doing so, then person A is also obliged to coerce (or at least is justified in coercing) person B into helping himself, ie doing what he'd rather not do but what person A thinks is better for him? And Julian saying ain't so? If so, I'd say it's pretty clear that the two are very different and that I'm with Julian.

|1.27.05 @ 7:06PM|#

fyodor,

My gut reaction to Matt's post was the same old same old, but with couched terms - "Properly caring people are paternalistic, but once in a while we're not because we're so properly caring."

|1.28.05 @ 1:29AM|#

Leftists say the darndest things!

I guess I should not be surprised. Logical reasoning, with distinctons, analogies, and counter-examples (In other words intellectual discussion in general) is not something paternalists are good at.

-Charity: Helping someone, with his or her consent, to get out of unpleasant circumstances they might have had no control over.

-Paternalism: "Helping" someone, against his or her will, by forcing him or her to refrain from doing something he or she wants to do (usually something that produces physical enjoyment but increases the risk of some health problem in the future) or forcing him or her to do something he or she doesn't want to do.

Consider this example:

You're friend who told you he doesn't want to drink alchohol is trapped under a book shelf. A funnel has fallen into his mouth and some beer is about to spill into it. Before the funnel was in his mouth he said "Help me out from under this." Using your physical strength to help him is sort of like charity. You are helping him with his permission to avoid the effect of something he doesn't want to undergo and to get into circumstances he prefers to his current circumstances.

You have the right to help him. Does it follow that you have the right to use your physical strength to stop informed consenting adults from drinking for their own good? No because that ignores the whole notion of consent, which really does make all the difference. But according to this guy's reasoning you would have that right.

Let me clarify the analogy:

you government or philanthropist
moving bookcase welfare policies or charity
( It will be pointed out that the state must tax to get the money to do that. Pretend you belive for arguement sake that the state has a right to do so. You would not be coercing the person you are helping which is the whole point)

stoping people from drinkingpaternallistic policies

Paternalism is akin to charity like rape is akin to consentual sex

An honest paternalist would say: "I know you are a mentally competent adult. I know you have given informed consent to assume the risk you are taking. I know your decision is not a result of insanity or inability to think rationally but because you actually enjoy what you are doing. I know you have a right to make decisions for yourself, that many things which are enjoyable have a tendency to decrease longevity, and that life would be less fun without them. I just have an overwhelming desire to treat you like a child so I can be condescending and feel like I am better than you."

|1.28.05 @ 1:35AM|#

Ok I have to preview my posts.

You are analagous to government or philanthropist

moving book case is analagous to welfare or charity

stopping drinking is analagous to paternalistic policies

|1.29.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Once upopn a time 'we' had what it takes to raise good, responsible, God fearing, as it should be, kids. We have been 'experted' into dependence and nonsense to the extent we no longer know which end is up. For nothing, no charge at all, you are welcome to my simple roadmap for success in life, success at being a decent, responsible self sufficien member of society. My credentials: I have raise 6 such 'members', who are a credit to me and their God. The rest is BS and the problem is all the do gooders, the 'thinkers', the 'paternalistic' busy bodies, usually feeding at the public trough, whose own lives are barren and without joy. Why the hell don't you leave the rest of us alone??