What are your views on Paternalistic Legislation

[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 August 4, 2011 by CitizenX

[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 August 4, 2011 by Wild Bill

[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 August 5, 2011 by CitizenX

[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 August 5, 2011 by Bonam

[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 August 5, 2011 by CitizenX

[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 August 5, 2011 by Wilber

[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 August 5, 2011 by CitizenX

[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.

[Oleg Bach]

If you are a totally under developed retart - I can understand parantal legislation. If you are a healthy happy and holy human being - get out of my face! The worst part is that most bureaucrats and politicans are not that intelligent - and assume thathe public is even less so - the underestimation of the public in regards to their capaicity to take care of their own affairs is common amoungst public representatives - look at the interm leader who heads the NDP - she is not the sharpest tool in the shed and she would resent anyone that would not comply to what she believes is a superiour idealogy...again - get out of my face!

[Michael Hardner]

The worst part is that most bureaucrats and politicans are not that intelligent - and assume thathe public is even less so

We're not talking about 'the public', we're talking about 'the masses'. You can be sure that if you put something out there, at least one of the masses will do something stupid with it. Of course, a threshold of one person is too high for us to work with.

However, the threshold does increase over time.

[guyser]

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.

Then insurance companies would find one minor reason to deny coverage after the fact. Not to mention the impossibility of writing such a policy.

Ergo.....

Government has no business being involved.

The govt has to be involved to set minimums, set rules and to adjudicate disputes.

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.

The only true society on earth is Somalia. Hows that working out for them? Life good?

[guyser]

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!

The American Journal of Epidemiology has reported their is not one link for second hand smoke causes anything.

But I know what you mean, I have the same problem with car exhaust. Far worse and a million times more of it.

[Wilber]

Why all the hostility?

Sorry if I came across that way but these threads always seem to take the same course.

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

According to Einstein "common sense" is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. If so, who is to say the people enacting these laws aren't applying common sense?

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

OK, how far do we want to take it? That is the question we have to answer as a society. Like most people I guess, there are some restrictive laws I agree with and some not so much, which on balance probably means we aren't doing too badly.

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.

The word minimal doesn't mean much to me. It can mean anything.

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.

Agreed but the devil is in the details

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?

It is fairly normal. Some times it is deserved and sometimes it's not, so if you are going to take it personally, you are in the wrong place. I don't think the majority of posters are being personal regardless of what they may say. I know I am guilty of being somewhat "sharp" at times but I bear no ill will to the jackass it is directed at. There are rules against personal attacks but a lot of latitude is given on this forum. I think the moderators do a great job of maintaining a balance.

[CitizenX]

Then insurance companies would find one minor reason to deny coverage after the fact. Not to mention the impossibility of writing such a policy.

It wouldn't be impossible to write a policy. Your motorcycle insurance states you must wear helmet at all times failure to do so with affect your insurance in such and such ways. If you get in an accident it's pretty simply to show whether or not you were wearing one. The same thing can be done with a seat belt case, either buy the degree of injury or I believe that new cars are installed with what is called black boxes.

The only true society on earth is Somalia. Hows that working out for them? Life good?

This is too ridiculous to respond to.

[CitizenX]

Sorry if I came across that way but these threads always seem to take the same course.

It is fairly normal. Some times it is deserved and sometimes it's not, so if you are going to take it personally, you are in the wrong place. I don't think the majority of posters are being personal regardless of what they may say. I know I am guilty of being somewhat "sharp" at times but I bear no ill will to the jackass it is directed at. There are rules against personal attacks but a lot of latitude is given on this forum. I think the moderators do a great job of maintaining a balance.

I'm a sensitive soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsbQrS6yC4A

[Tilter]

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!

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

Bullshit.

The abuse of tobacco, in other words. burning it, infringes on the rightsof other people. I followed an smoking asshole (with his kids) in a mall and asked him to put it out as it was bothering my breathing. He wouldn't but he also was greatly chagrined when I let go a super fart next to him & his idiot progeny. Go figure

Edited August 7, 2011 by Tilter

[CitizenX]

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."

I'm not sure if I'm following you. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and it's pretty basic. every child probably knows it. You don't hurt other people, or destroy their stuff, you don't steal, and you don't commit fraud (Lie). If you are a moral and thinking person these laws are self evident. So when you say "If you don't get caught at breaking the law, does this constitute "less State?" I'm not following. If your asking if less laws that interfere with my idea of liberty means less state then yes i guess so. I'm not sure what isolation has to do with it. Maybe you could respond and re-phrase the question.

The Laws job is to protect peoples rights and property and to prevent fraud. I'm sure that you will add a few things, but for me that's about it for me.

Liberty for me means full self-ownership (I own my life). As long as I don't interfere with other people's rights and property in a negative way or without their permission or commit fraud the state should not interfere with me.

I'm not an isolationist I just don't think the government needs to interfere so much with the social interaction of the citizens. Less red tape, less social engineering, less government.

These are just my views and I'm open to a friendly swap of ideas. But please note I've noticed in this forum that people are more interested in simply smashing ideas and not having civilized conversations. I have no problem if you question my views, but add yours. I'm open to any and all new ideas and am not afraid to learn something new. It's just that it seems I write my views, someone tries to smash it, then I have to justify it, then they try to smash it, ect. ect. ect. If you look at the title of the Post it's What are your views on Paternalistic Legislation.

Edited August 8, 2011 by CitizenX

[Shwa]

I'm not sure if I'm following you. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and it's pretty basic. every child probably knows it. You don't hurt other people, or destroy their stuff, you don't steal, and you don't commit fraud (Lie). If you are a moral and thinking person these laws are self evident. So when you say "If you don't get caught at breaking the law, does this constitute "less State?" I'm not following. If your asking if less laws that interfere with my idea of liberty means less state then yes i guess so. I'm not sure what isolation has to do with it. Maybe you could respond and re-phrase the question.

Taking a leak outdoors has different consequences depending on your location right? Well, if you are in a situation where you can operate under the condition of "less laws" and get away with it, would you? It seems to me that where there are more people, there is more chance of laws being applied. Is there a corollary there you think?

The Laws job is to protect peoples rights and property and to prevent fraud. I'm sure that you will add a few things, but for me that's about it for me.

Yes but, protect it from whom?

Liberty for me means full self-ownership (I own my life). As long as I don't interfere with other people's rights and property in a negative way or without their permission or commit fraud the state should not interfere with me.

No man is an island. There isn't a single thing on your list that doesn't involve other people in one way or another, including taxpayers.

I'm not an isolationist I just don't think the government needs to interfere so much with the social interaction of the citizens. Less red tape, less social engineering, less government.

I tend to agree and on your poll I chose option #3.

These are just my views and I'm open to a friendly swap of ideas. But please note I've noticed in this forum that people are more interested in simply smashing ideas and not having civilized conversations. I have no problem if you question my views, but add yours. I'm open to any and all new ideas and am not afraid to learn something new. It's just that it seems I write my views, someone tries to smash it, then I have to justify it, then they try to smash it, ect. ect. ect. If you look at the title of the Post it's What are your views on Paternalistic Legislation.

My view, other than #3, is that where it will save the public money and/or improve efficiencies, why not regulate? So, for example, why should I have to pay for someone else's stupidity (medical bills)when they crash their bike without a helmet?