Opinion on soft/libertarian/opt-out paternalism

[axiomata]

Opposition to hard paternalism -- government coerced behaviour "because it is good for you" will be rightly opposed in this neck of the woods. However I am interested in seeing arguments for and against so called soft paternalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism).

There is no doubt some behaviours are inarguably bad for you (ex: smoking), and other instances where not doing something is inarguably bad for you (ex: using a seat belt).

In the name of liberty, governmental coercion of citizens behaviour to good habits is wrong, but what of the cases where government can change the default position to the healthy option; leaving the alternative option legal, but requiring the conscience decision to go against the status quo.

For example, Ron Paul takes a soft paternalistic viewpoint towards social security with his support for the option to "opt out". The argument being that saving for retirement is definitely smart, so the "lazy/procrastinating" status quo would be enrolment in SS. A conscience decision would have to be made to not save, or to save through a more risky investment. Soft paternalism might legalize drug use, but require signing of a waiver acknowledging and accepting the health/social effects of that decision. Soft paternalism might allow businesses to allow smoking inside, but require a sign being posted on the door stating that smoking is allowed in the establishment and pointing out the consequences of second hand smoke. Soft paternalism might make the question asked when you get a driver's license: "Would you like to opt out of the organ donor program?" There are other potential cases but those popped to my head first.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Why should I, as a free citizen, have to sign a waiver saying that I understand the risks of making a decision? The whole point of personal responsibility is to think about such things beforehand, and if the necessary precautions haven't been taken, then, tough luck.

Of course, this soft paternalism is better than what we have now, but still rests on that deplorable slippery slope of requiring people to be given consent to go ahead and engage in activities that the government has no rightful place monitoring.

[sailor]

For example, Ron Paul takes a soft paternalistic viewpoint towards social security with his support for the option to "opt out". The argument being that saving for retirement is definitely smart, so the "lazy/procrastinating" status quo would be enrolment in SS. A conscience decision would have to be made to not save, or to save through a more risky investment. Soft paternalism might legalize drug use, but require signing of a waiver acknowledging and accepting the health/social effects of that decision. Soft paternalism might allow businesses to allow smoking inside, but require a sign being posted on the door stating that smoking is allowed in the establishment and pointing out the consequences of second hand smoke. Soft paternalism might make the question asked when you get a driver's license: "Would you like to opt out of the organ donor program?" There are other potential cases but those popped to my head first.

Your examples are different from Ron Paul`s.

If I want to take drugs why does the state need to humiliate me with this waiver? And if I refuse to sign, but stil take drugs what happens? I get stuffed into jail?

[Antonius Stone]

soft paternalism makes sense in some cases. I guess the main idea is that instead of the government making rules you have to follow it instead makes recommendations that you can chose to follow or not.

makes sense to me

[Truth Warrior]

We're ALL ignorant, just about different things.<IMHO> ;) :)


"Freedom is the right to BE wrong and NOT the right to DO wrong."

[Antonius Stone]

the best example of soft paternalism I could think of are those A, B, C health grade signs that the department of health puts up in all the restaurants here in Los Angeles.

[sailor]

the best example of soft paternalism I could think of are those A, B, C health grade signs that the department of health puts up in all the restaurants here in Los Angeles.

And who is paying for all that?

[Antonius Stone]

And who is paying for all that?

you're right. I'd much rather call an 800 number and pay a fee to a professional company every time I go out to find out which restaurants follow good health standards.

[sailor]

you're right. I'd much rather call an 800 number and pay a fee to a professional company every time I go out to find out which restaurants follow good health standards.

I`d much rather not be forced to pay for your imbecilic little grade signs. If you`re a health freak that is your problem, you do the suffering. I don`t need to sponsor you from my pocket. Last time I checked eating out wasn`t an unaliable right. If you`re too much of a chicken to eat at a place without little government signs you can stay at home and cook your own damn food.

[Mini-Me]

you're right. I'd much rather call an 800 number and pay a fee to a professional company every time I go out to find out which restaurants follow good health standards.

To be fair, under the current system, there's an assumption that "government health standards" to even stay in business are "good enough." In most places (without A, B, and C signs), this is a great example of how the government sets the bar low and people don't even realize it. Now, if there was no government health regulation and everyone knew it, how would restaurants attract customers? Assuming enough customers cared, the restaurants themselves would pay health certification agencies, who would put their stamp of approval outside of restaurants...and since those agencies would be competing for prestige, they'd have higher standards and lower costs than government programs currently do. That way, the costs are passed onto the right people - those who choose to eat out the most - rather than everyone in society, through taxation.

I oppose soft paternalism on principle (I voted "oppose in all situations"), though I'd support it as a temporary transition from the hard paternalism we currently have. (That's what Ron Paul's "opt out" of Social Security option is designed to be: A temporary solution while Social Security is phased out. That said, Social Security is much worse than just forcing people to save for retirement, because it also pools everyone's money and redistributes it.)

[Antonius Stone]

I`d much rather not be forced to pay for your imbecilic little grade signs. If you`re a health freak that is your problem, you do the suffering. I don`t need to sponsor you from my pocket. Last time I checked eating out wasn`t an unaliable right. If you`re too much of a chicken to eat at a place without little government signs you can stay at home and cook your own damn food.

have fun puking then

[The_Orlonater]

To be fair, under the current system, there's an assumption that "government health standards" to even stay in business are "good enough." In most places (without A, B, and C signs), this is a great example of how the government sets the bar low and people don't even realize it. Now, if there was no government health regulation and everyone knew it, how would restaurants attract customers? Assuming enough customers cared, the restaurants themselves would pay health certification agencies, who would put their stamp of approval outside of restaurants...and since those agencies would be competing for prestige, they'd have higher standards and lower costs than government programs currently do. That way, the costs are passed onto the right people - those who choose to eat out the most - rather than everyone in society, through taxation.

I oppose soft paternalism on principle (I voted "oppose in all situations"), though I'd support it as a temporary transition from the hard paternalism we currently have. (That's what Ron Paul's "opt out" of Social Security option is designed to be: A temporary solution while Social Security is phased out. That said, Social Security is much worse than just forcing people to save for retirement, because it also pools everyone's money and redistributes it.)


Restaurants would work their best to serve clean and healthy food, they are a business competing in the market? Let's say, a certain someone gets sick and the local paper prints the story. What's the chance of getting business.

Besides, most people are health freaks. There's always been hard paternalism around, we still are fat asses. Not many people read the nutritional facts. When I was in Mexico, their local markets weren't the most sanitary, but I never got sick and the food was delicious. wwww

[axiomata]

First of all, I do not support any paternalism, soft or otherwise, at the federal level, as there is no constitutional justification for it. Perhaps I should have made clear that such soft-paternalism would be at a state or local level.


Why should I, as a free citizen, have to sign a waiver saying that I understand the risks of making a decision? The whole point of personal responsibility is to think about such things beforehand, and if the necessary precautions haven't been taken, then, tough luck.

The vast majority of people are you like you, and would not need "nudging" or "informing". But the purpose of all types of paternalism is not for people like you, it is for people who due to their age, or mental capability, tend not to make fully rational or informed decisions in many cases.


Your examples are different from Ron Paul`s.

If I want to take drugs why does the state need to humiliate me with this waiver? And if I refuse to sign, but stil take drugs what happens? I get stuffed into jail?

Only the first example was a RP example, the rest were mine.

In its application, you'd only have to sign the waiver once, perhaps when you turn 21 and get an updated driver's license. There'd be a little stamp on the license signally to store owners that they can sell you drugs. Are you humiliated when you have to show your ID when you buy alcohol?



I oppose soft paternalism on principle (I voted "oppose in all situations"), though I'd support it as a temporary transition from the hard paternalism we currently have. (That's what Ron Paul's "opt out" of Social Security option is designed to be: A temporary solution while Social Security is phased out. That said, Social Security is much worse than just forcing people to save for retirement, because it also pools everyone's money and redistributes it.)

I think most of us will accept it as a hopefully temporary compromise if it means getting us out from under the iron grip of the nanny state.

[sailor]

Are you humiliated when you have to show your ID when you buy alcohol?

Dunno, never showed ID to buy booze. Don`t carry my passport around that much.


In its application, you'd only have to sign the waiver once, perhaps when you turn 21 and get an updated driver's license. There'd be a little stamp on the license signally to store owners that they can sell you drugs.

That`s not good enough. What if I`m 17 and want to take drugs right now, and have my old man`s permission in writting. You know, from my pater.


Screw this paternalism deal. Paternalism only makes sense if you consider your countrymen to be children. I don`t. They`re grownups. And I am not their pop. And neither is any politico.