36 replies to this topic

[CitizenX]

Some examples

• Seat belt laws
• Pension system
• Motorcyclists helmet laws
• Laws that forbid people from swimming at a public beach when lifeguards are not present
• Prohibition (Marijuana)
• Gun storage laws
• Suicide or assisted suicide
• Gay marriage
• Abortion
• Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting

Basically any law made by government that protect people from themselves, and defy the principles of individual rationality and liberty. Any laws whereby those in government show that they are arrogant enough that they not only know what is best for themselves, but they know what's best for everyone else as well, and are willing to use the power of government to force us to comply. I may be biased

Edited by CitizenX, 04 August 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[Oleg Bach]

This looks like a good one - get back to you after I take my bike ride over to the wives to have a nice salad...she is very paternalistic. AND I take advantage of that need to control...as will the citizens of Canada take advantage of any governmental jerk that wants to play mummy.

[Bonam]

Some examples

• Seat belt laws
• Pension system
• Motorcyclists helmet laws
• Laws that forbid people from swimming at a public beach when lifeguards are not present
• Prohibition (Marijuana)
• Gun storage laws
• Suicide or assisted suicide
• Gay marriage
• Abortion
• Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting

Some of your examples do not merely safeguard the individual who is being controlled, but others around them as well. For example:

- second hand smoke from cigarettes affects the health not just of smokers, and the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system, so non smokers pay for the treatment of smokers
- the argument over abortion is centered around whether it is in fact killing an individual who should also have the right to live
- seat belts and motorcycle helmets reduce the severity of injuries in accidents, which means that other people involved in the accident get sued for less and have lower insurance costs
- an improperly stored gun can be a risk to people besides the person who stored it improperly

In general, I agree with you. Any action which endangers solely the person who commits said action and has no impact on others whatsoever should not be controlled or regulated by government. But if there is a risk or cost to other members of society, it is not nearly so clear cut.

[Wild Bill]

Some of your examples do not merely safeguard the individual who is being controlled, but others around them as well. For example:

- second hand smoke from cigarettes affects the health not just of smokers, and the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system, so non smokers pay for the treatment of smokers
- the argument over abortion is centered around whether it is in fact killing an individual who should also have the right to live
- seat belts and motorcycle helmets reduce the severity of injuries in accidents, which means that other people involved in the accident get sued for less and have lower insurance costs
- an improperly stored gun can be a risk to people besides the person who stored it improperly

In general, I agree with you. Any action which endangers solely the person who commits said action and has no impact on others whatsoever should not be controlled or regulated by government. But if there is a risk or cost to other members of society, it is not nearly so clear cut.

Ah Bonam, but even your exceptions spark arguments. For instance, since Canada is one of the few countries in the world that make it illegal to pay your own medical costs (the others being Angola and Cuba - good company, eh?) is it morally right to expect to control an individual's behaviour on the grounds of his possible cost to the health care system that he has no choice to use?

Second hand smoke is subject to more "politically correct" biased science than climate change! Sure was a great tool against the smokers. Especially when society allowed smokers no place of their own to avoid non-smokers! I always thought it telling that no one ever tried having smoking and non-smoking restaurants, so that non-smokers and even staff would have the choice. Instead, smokers can either sit with non-smokers and be forced to abide by anti-smoking rules or they can stay home. In some cases, even if they stay home they can face problems if their smoke leaks into an adjoining apartment.

Anyhow, I'm picking apart your model instead of your point. I'm just trying to conform to the common practice on this board!

Edited by Wild Bill, 04 August 2011 - 04:22 PM.

[CitizenX]

Some of your examples do not merely safeguard the individual who is being controlled, but others around them as well. For example:

- second hand smoke from cigarettes affects the health not just of smokers, and the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system, so non smokers pay for the treatment of smokers

Second hand smoke might be a good point. But my example was Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting.If you use the argument that "the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system" that becomes a slippery slope. So does risky sports, so does eating poorly, ect. If your going to have universal health care you have to be careful how you use paternalism. Not to mention when you raise taxes like that you promote the underground economy.

Ohhh and not to be to unfeeling but I hearing about study done by Philip Morris for the czech republic that showed citizens that smoked in the long run save the government money. They saved money from things like Tax revenues from the cigarettes,Heath Care saving from early death, Pension savings, and saving in housing costs. It showed a savings from premature deatht of $1227.00 per person. Gotta love Big Tobacco

- the argument over abortion is centered around whether it is in fact killing an individual who should also have the right to live

True this is a issue of personhood so I'm not sure where I stand as far as paternalism. Is a human being a person at conception or only at a later stage? I don't believe religion doctrine has any role in this issue. It's a legal issue so science and reason should be the only tools used.

Canadian Medical Association, 1991
“A human fetus becomes a person ... when the foetal nervous system has developed to the point where it has the basic capacity for sapient cognitive awareness irrespective of level of sophistication.” (CMA, Committee on Ethics, p. 290)

Cognitive awareness?  Is this different from bare consciousness?

Fetal personhood (fetus at 20 weeks = person)

Abortion is murder for after 20 weeks ?????

- seat belts and motorcycle helmets reduce the severity of injuries in accidents, which means that other people involved in the accident get sued for less and have lower insurance costs

Here in BC insurance is public so for me it's very similar to the smoking example. If it is private insurance like in Alberta I would say that it's like any insurance is should be stipulated some where that if it is found that your injuries were for the most part caused by not wearing a seat belt or helmet your coverage or compensation is reduced. Government has no business being involved.

- an improperly stored gun can be a risk to people besides the person who stored it improperly

To have a truly free society, it is important for all of its members to accept responsibility for their own actions. Accidents happen, you can educate people, but you can't legislate responsibility.

Edited by CitizenX, 04 August 2011 - 07:01 PM.

[Bonam]

I tend to agree with your overall sentiment, CitizenX, but I am just trying to point out the distinction. My interpretation of what you meant by "paternalistic policies" was policies that the government implements in order to tell you what to do, for you own good. I agree with you that purely paternalistic policies in this sense have no place in our body of legislation. However, many of your examples do not fit that definition, since they have the good of others primarily or at least partly in mind.

Now, personally, I'm all for private insurance and a private option for health care. But so long as these systems are public and work the way they do, it is not unreasonable to expect the government to try to reduce costs in these systems.

Edited by Bonam, 04 August 2011 - 07:10 PM.

[Remiel]

Second hand smoke is subject to more "politically correct" biased science than climate change!

I do not give a shit how " politically correct " you think second hand smoking regulations are. There is no God-damned reason why anyone should have to be saddled with the risk because careless, selfish smokers cannot be bothered to do it away from the entrances to places of work. Despite the God damned signs signs, and despite it being the middle of the Summer!

[Bonam]

Ah Bonam, but even your exceptions spark arguments. For instance, since Canada is one of the few countries in the world that make it illegal to pay your own medical costs (the others being Angola and Cuba - good company, eh?) is it morally right to expect to control an individual's behaviour on the grounds of his possible cost to the health care system that he has no choice to use?

Well, technically, the individual does have a choice whether to use the medical system or not. He/she could simply leave the injuries/illnesses untreated. He/she could also travel to a different country and pay for the use of medical services there.

Second hand smoke is subject to more "politically correct" biased science than climate change! Sure was a great tool against the smokers. Especially when society allowed smokers no place of their own to avoid non-smokers! I always thought it telling that no one ever tried having smoking and non-smoking restaurants, so that non-smokers and even staff would have the choice. Instead, smokers can either sit with non-smokers and be forced to abide by anti-smoking rules or they can stay home. In some cases, even if they stay home they can face problems if their smoke leaks into an adjoining apartment.

Well, personally, I find smoking to be vile, and I can't stand the smell of smoke. Smoking in an apartment building is terrible actually, mostly cause the common laundry machines retain the smell and then spread it to all the non-smokers laundry as well. Fortunately, many apartment buildings are non-smoking now. That being said, I would have nothing against restaurants and other establishments for smokers. Hopefully, the employees would at least get hazard pay for working in such a toxic environment ;p

Anyhow, I'm picking apart your model instead of your point. I'm just trying to conform to the common practice on this board!

Returned in kind

[CitizenX]

I tend to agree with your overall sentiment, CitizenX, but I am just trying to point out the distinction. My interpretation of what you meant by "paternalistic policies" was policies that the government implements in order to tell you what to do, for you own good. I agree with you that purely paternalistic policies in this sense have no place in our body of legislation. However, many of your examples do not fit that definition, since they have the good of others primarily or at least partly in mind.

Now, personally, I'm all for private insurance and a private option for health care. But so long as these systems are public and work the way they do, it is not unreasonable to expect the government to try to reduce costs in these systems.

Hey Bonam, Paternalism refers to a policy that prevents others from doing harm to themselves or directs them morally. I just threw up some examples quickly so some might be questionable or need better definement (if that's a word).abortion which might be questionable. But I think the rest fit.

Edited by CitizenX, 04 August 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[Wilber]

Here in BC insurance is public so for me it's very similar to the smoking example. If it is private insurance like in Alberta I would say that it's like any insurance is should be stipulated some where that if it is found that your injuries were for the most part caused by not wearing a seat belt or helmet your coverage or compensation is reduced. Government has no business being involved.

I have a better idea. The insurance company becomes responsible for the lifetime costs of your not taking appropriate precautions and you pay a premium that reflects that risk. The government has every business being involved if it is the government that gets stuck with the tab.

To have a truly free society, it is important for all of its members to accept responsibility for their own actions. Accidents happen, you can educate people, but you can't legislate responsibility.

And in a truly free society, the state would have no obligation to pay for the consequences of your irresponsibility.

Edited by Wilber, 04 August 2011 - 08:45 PM.

[CitizenX]

I have a better idea. The insurance company becomes responsible for the lifetime costs of your not taking appropriate precautions and you pay a premium that reflects that risk.

Sounds good, I'm an adult with good common sense. Should be a low rate.

The government has every business being involved if it is the government that gets stuck with the tab.

This is true, should we tax junk food like cigarettes, $8.00 big mac? Should we have a tax on all dangerous sports (hockey)?

And in a truly free society, the state would have no obligation to pay for the consequences of your irresponsibility.

My opinion the less State the better. We are all adults it's time to grow up. It's too easy for people to be irresponsible and never grow up when you have a nanny.

[Wilber]

Sounds good, I'm an adult with good common sense. Should be a low rate.

Why would an insurance company give you a lower rate for not wearing a helmet or seatbelt? Because you say you have common sense?

This is true, should we tax junk food like cigarettes, $8.00 big mac? Should we have a tax on all dangerous sports (hockey)?

We tax the crap out of cigarettes and alcohol. Maybe a Big Mac should cost $8.00 but how far do you want to go with this stuff? We don't ask people not to engage in dangerous sports. We do ask them to take precautions to reduce the risk of injury.

My opinion the less State the better. We are all adults it's time to grow up. It's too easy for people to be irresponsible and never grow up when you have a nanny.

You all or nothing guys make me laugh. Why have a State at all then? Survival of the fittest and to hell with all the social compacts we have built over millennia.

[CitizenX]

Why all the hostility?

Why would an insurance company give you a lower rate for not wearing a helmet or seatbelt? Because you say you have common sense?

When did I say I wouldn't wear a helmet or seatbelt? I said I have have common sense.

We tax the crap out of cigarettes and alcohol. Maybe a Big Mac should cost $8.00 but how far do you want to go with this stuff? We don't ask people not to engage in dangerous sports. We do ask them to take precautions to reduce the risk of injury.

It's not how far I want to take it, the question was directed to you.

You all or nothing guys make me laugh. Why have a State at all then? Survival of the fittest and to hell with all the social compacts we have built over millennia.

Please don't presume you know me, especially when you continue to misinterpreted what I am saying. I didn't say no state, I would like to see minimal state.

Government plays a very important role providing safety and security for individuals acting freely together. We need safe streets and the comfort of knowing our military is protecting us from foreign attacks. We need to know our contracts will be enforced, that disputes can be settled fairly and that coercion against us will be punished. We need to know the rule of law will be applied to everyone equally and that there's not a privileged class above the law.


I came to this forum to explore ideas, discuss issues, and have some philosophical debates. I'm not pushing my ideas on anyone, just stating what I believe. But it seems certain members are hostile to any new ideas, and would rather bash your ideas than to contribute constructively. I'm new to this forum so please help me, is this normal?

Edited by CitizenX, 04 August 2011 - 11:08 PM.

[Shwa]

Some examples ...

Basically any law made by government that protect people from themselves, and defy the principles of individual rationality and liberty. Any laws whereby those in government show that they are arrogant enough that they not only know what is best for themselves, but they know what's best for everyone else as well, and are willing to use the power of government to force us to comply. I may be biased

You may be biased? ....

Oh, I see now...

My opinion the less State the better. We are all adults it's time to grow up. It's too easy for people to be irresponsible and never grow up when you have a nanny.

If you don't get caught at breaking the law, does this constitute "less State?" For example, there are places and situations, I am sure, where you can get away with minimal state intervention in your life, where they cannot force you to comply (because "they" won't have a clue what you are up to) where you can be a nanny-free responsible adult.

Paternalism isn't needed, just a little isolationism. A little nation-within-a-nation, unto yourself, complete with all the requisite Hobbsian notions of uniform law and order for all. The problem being, of course, is that society is not at all - and never will be uniform - and that practically everything one does affects another.

Or maybe you need to revise your list of examples and perhaps solidify what you mean by "individual rationality and liberty."

[Oleg Bach]

It's no bodies buisness when you are a responisble adult....how you conduct yourself privately - For instance as I mentioned in the past - I was helping my brother deal with a childrens aid society - One of the left wing lower middle class social workers who probably had never sat beside a fire in her whole life....complained to the judge ----"they had a fire place and there was not screen on it, the children are in horrible danger" - Firstly a screen on a fire place is to stop sparks from popping out...it is not a saftey barrier...so _ my brother put me on the stand...and questioned me about the fire place that was one of those in the center of a large room.


All I said to the judge regarding the paternalistic attitude of the commie social worker who will never make enough money to even have a fire place was this....."My family have used fire for a thousand years and not once has one of our children dumbled into the flames" - Paternalism by government shows that those who KNOW best actually don't have any experience or wisdom to know anything for sure. People have the right to be modernist - or rough and tumble primatives such as my red neck brother...Red neck culture is a culture - but the urbanites just assume that we red necks need help because we must be stupid..


In a multi-cultural society - the white rural red neck is not recognzed as a relevant culture - only cultures from out side of Canada are respected it seems.