"Soft Paternalism"

I say to the government, "stick to defending our borders and providing protection from crime and disasters -- other than that leave us the hell alone."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jbarnhart @ Apr 23 2006, 09:27 PM) [snapback]244151[/snapback]</div>

+1

It is a slippery slope and difficult to draw the line once you get started. Perhaps one of those riverboat gamblers reformed and can now gamble in small amounts. Should we ban overweight people from fast food joints? or limit their ability to jumbo size it?

Read the Constitution. The government only gets to do what is listed in the Constitution. Everything else is up to the States and individuals.

There is no Paternalism clause or amendment. Governments have killed 100 million of their own people in the 20th century. I prefer a government that fears the individual (just like the founding fathers) rather than the people fearing the government. Why should any American fear going into a river boat?

Who or what determines healthy behavior. That definition changes over time. Who gets to decide. We had 70 years of Russian kommie rule that showed that the state's definition of correct behavior is usually wrong.

Are there really people out there who cannot figure out for themselves how to control themselves? I don't want to spend my money on those immature folks.

 

I find myself objecting strongly to the idea that the goverment can possibly know what is best for the individual amoungst the population. How does the goverment decide what the "defaults" whould be? Right and wrong are highly dependent on religious beliefs, so which one is the basis? Do we pick Judeo-Christian values, Islamic, Budism's, Native American's, Athiistic? Our do we have individualised sets, based on one's value system? No matter the method, this becomes complicated beyond belief, and complication equals cost. I suppose if one must choose between soft and hard, soft is somewhat better, as far as individual freedoms go, but it's also going to cost much. much more. The whole idea of either flavor is flawed.

I believe the goverment exists to provide services that are impractical for private entities, such as roads, utilities, military and policing. Pretty much anything else sould be a funtion of the private sector, or just does not need doing at all. Each person should look at a goverment activity and say "I am spending MY money on this task. Is this proper?" Even though it is in the goverment's hands at the moment, it is still each and every individuals money.

The United States has devloped the idea that everyone should have a particular thing and everyone should be provided with a particular service, regardless of finacial viability. What this really amounts to, however, is everyone must pay for another individual to have said service or product when they cannot pay for it themselves. When done on a voluntary vasis, this is fine, but is fundimenally wrong when obligitory. Use everybody's money for things everybody uses. Do not use everybody's money for things one person or a few use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkjm73 @ Apr 24 2006, 06:05 AM) [snapback]244195[/snapback]</div>

We have the defaults in place, whether they are for the best or not. Using the example of saving through IRAs, the default is currently that nothing is automatically set aside for IRA. So the default is NOT to save. I don't know how exactly this soft paternalism should work, but "no decision is a decision." So as long as these decisions or "defaults" are going to be made anyway, it seems like somebody with power ought to be thinking of consequences, hopefully for the good of individuals and society.

Peace --

 

This is all wonderful sounding, except that soft guidance has gotten us where we are today with the oil problems. Soft enforcement of smoking bans means I still have to breathe smoke when I go to a restaurant, because a single cigarette is enough to contaminate the air in entire area. Soft drinking and driving "guidelines" still leaves innocent people splattered on the highway. Republicans want to believe that the government needs to "stay out of their business" but in fact the government is the people, and without boundaries, our society cannot be free. Free to breathe clean air, free to drive home without being hit head on by a Drunk Driver, free to buy gasoline for a reasonable price because someone else didn't burn all of it driving Hummer H2's.

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Apr 24 2006, 09:12 PM) [snapback]244693[/snapback]</div>

I think I saw this in an Orwell book. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

To me "freedom" is freedom from excessive laws, regulations, and other government inducements to do what some pencil-necked bureaucrat thinks is "best" for society. THAT'S what has gotten us into the mess we're in. Excessive meddling and social engineering which results in the "unintended consequences" which we find ourselves mired in.