Centerfield

It's one thing to agree that "moral panic" exists as a concept and is occasionally displayed by our society. It is another to agree that any particular alleged example is in fact an episode of "moral panic". Criticizing and labelling a particular societal phenomenon as "moral panic" could in fact be a work of moral panic itself. And it doesn't necessarily help us deal with the problems, either.

For example, I think the growing epidemic of methampetamine use is in fact a serious problem in today's society. Meth is an extremely addictive drug and is relatively easy to make. Something must be done to help keep people off of it. At the same time, some of the reactions to the problem have indeed been ill considered. In my own state, I can no longer just go and buy Sudafed off the shelf at the pharmacy (because it can be used in making meth). I must give my name to the clerk for recording, and I can only buy a certain amount at a time. I don't agree with that law and wish they would change it. But that doesn't mean meth isn't a problem.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 2, 2006 02:26 PM

So the lesson is "sometimes you need to be a paternalist, right Pat? :-)

They keep the sudafed behind the counter in MA as well. Same rationale. I don't know that they limit quantities, but they might look askance.

I heard that the makers of Nyquil and Dayquil changed the antihistamine ingredient in these elixirs to keep their products out on the drugstore floor. Word is the new formulation is less effective.

I wonder if there's any data yet to suggest whether such changes have had any effect on the meth market. Do makers go to unregulated states, or do they have some other readily available source of ephedrine that makes this regulation mostly a feel-good window dressing time vampire?

If the behind-the-counter policy actually has reduced supply or raised prices, both of which place limits on potential users, then I can live with asking for it from the shelf behind the pharmacist. But not if we're just jerking ourselves around. Some of the other stuff that's prescription I wonder about though. For example, last I checked, you still need a prescription for a motrin super Ibuprofen that's like 1000 mg, but you can take 5 of the OTC pills and get the same effect. What's the point?

Posted by: bk at March 2, 2006 03:01 PM

Many manufacturers came out with new cold medicines lacking pseudoephedrine (the key ingredient, and the one used in making meth). I can still by Sudafed, but it's Sudafed made with phenylephrine and is called "Sudafed PE". That drug has been used in Europe for many years. According to this study, phenylphrine is NOT an effective decongestant, unlike pseudoephedrine.

This is yet another area where I am against paternalism, Brian. ;) I don't think I should be denied access to a perfectly legal, non-addictive drug which has no significant negative impacts when used as directed, simply because some criminals use it in the manufacture of a dangerous and illegal narcotic. Now, if there truly were an equivalently effective alternative drug on the market, then I might think differently. But I don't believe in punishing innocent people for the misdeeds of criminals.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 2, 2006 03:13 PM

At the risk of carrying this analogy to a ridiculous extreme, perhaps talking about "paternalism" can be a form of moral panic. In one sense, government itself is paternalistic, ie, as Madison said, if men were angels, there would be no need for government. So, you could argue that anything government does is paternalistic.

I think it's harder than people seem to think to draw a line between "paternalism" and government protection of society (which I assume people believe is legitimate). It's one thing to say that I have right to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else; it's another thing, though, to say that government should not be involved in protecting the public as a whole from certain hazards. For example, it's certainly my right to eat all the crap junk food I want and it would be crazy to, say, outlaw junk food. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with making food manufacturers disclose what's in their food so that I can make informed decisions. And is it paternalism for the government to ENCOURAGE healthy eating?

There are other things that are closer questions and raise a lot of issues. For example, is it legitimate for government to pass laws regulating individual conduct (such as motorcycle helmet or seatbelt laws) because of the potential costs to society from injuries caused by not wearing helmets or seatbelts (not to mention the danger that a superbowl contender's season could go down the drain because the quarterback is too stupid to wear a helmet-:)?

It seems to me that one way of differentiating government action that is paternalistic from action that is not is whether the action is designed to protect people from dangers that they cannot guard against on their own. But even here, of course,you get into line drawing problems. I have a problem with total smoking bans in public places (even though I hate smoke), but I certainly can't protect myself against second hand smoke.

Posted by: Marc at March 2, 2006 03:49 PM

See, I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between paternalism (bad) and reasonable government action (good). I thbink we need to acknowledge that paternalism can be good or bad. It depends.

For example, Pat thinks we need to do something about meth, which is paternalistic, but good, because meth is dangerous. And he's against rules that punish him for the sins and weaknesses of others, which is paternalistic and bad.

The root of paternalism means father, and we like fatherhood. It's generally a meritorious cncept in all cultures. We know that parental guidance is good, but that taken to an extreme it can be dysfunctional and destructive. That's why I keep needling Pat about it, to see if I can get him to concede that it's a matter of balance. But he hates conceding such stuff, and is convinced that paternal is, in political circles, supposed to be reserved for exclusively pejorative use. It's such a small point, but I haven't been able to get him to budge.

Posted by: bk at March 2, 2006 04:27 PM

I generally agree with Marc on paternalism. I've got no problems with government-mandated disclosure of things like food ingredients (within reason; to the extent such requirements keep small businesses from setting up shop and entering the competition because of the costs of compliance, I tend to oppose them unless the threat being disclosed is much greater than that of high cholesterol).

Unlike radical libertarians, however, I also believe that it is rational for the people to decide that it is more effective and safer to have the government regulate certain products than to have the private sector do it, such as with the FDA. But that's not so much paternalism as effective use of resources. However, it can in some cases amount to paternalism when the FDA (as an example) refuses to allow a patient to undergo an unapproved procedure or take an unapproved drug even when the patient requests a waiver and demonstrates a clear understanding of the personal risks involved.

But I sense we are getting farther afield from the original topic of moral panic.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 2, 2006 04:33 PM

The problem I have with your reasoning, Brian, is that it appears to lead straight to unlimited libertarianism. The logic seems to disallow any regulation whatever -- terming any and all instances of it as paternalistic nanny-statery. IOW, it seems quite rigidly ideological.

Are there not any cases where such regulation is useful? Could not, and was not, mandatory seat-belt legislation decried as paternalism? But isn't such legislation clearly effective?

I agree that often attempted restrictions not only fail miserably but often cause more problems -- such as with Prohibition. I also agree that it is important to be skeptical towards "panics" and to make sure that any legislation, at the very least, actually accomplishes what it was intended to accomplish.

But again, I see no allowance for this in your reasoning. I for instance favor the legalization of marijuana but not cocaine. Does that make me a nanny-stater?

Furthermore, some, but not all, of the issues raised in the article are actually intended to make people more aware of choices, not restrict them. For instance, nutrition facts on food. I am glad that they are there, and I think it provides people with the tools they need to make informed decisions. I also agree with restaurant food labeling. If you actually are trying to lose weight or are on doctor's orders, it's nice to be able to easily ascertain what you're eating. I think restaurants should be required to provide nutrition facts. One could make the case that this is clear nanny-statery because it has the goal of changing eating habits. It does, but it does so via providing more information. Do you oppose warning labels on cigarettes as well?

People may choose to read this information or not. So what's wrong with labeling?

To me the "dark side" of libertarianism is that, in SOME cases, it's not really providing more freedom to the people, it's really just an excuse for companies to screw people over in the name of the free market.

Now as for censorship of "prurient" materials, I oppose it. However, I think many who have this libertarian tendency extend it to the point that these violent and graphically sexual material are just "fine" just "wonderful" they're no better or no worse than Sesame Street or fine art. To suggest anything else is elitism. I think that's a faulty argument. I oppose censorship because I don't think it does any good and I respect the individual's right to determine what they will and will not do. But that doesn't mean that I embrace some sort of moral or aesthetic relativism.

Following your notion that if one disagrees with certain forms of free speech, one should counter it with more free speech, I think it's good if people point out that some of these trends in society are -- in their opinion -- unhealthy.
Remember Buddha's idea of right speech, right concentration, right thought, no intoxicants, etc., etc. I'm just saying that even mr. friendly Buddha recognizes that some things probably aren't the best for people.

I think people should be free to determine that for themselves, but I'm not gonna mock Buddha for being a nanny-stater! In fact Buddha advised people to follow their own experience and not authority. So I guess that makes me -- and Buddha -- libertarian nanny-staters!

IOW, I lean liberatarian (as the marijuana and censorship examples illustrate) but I am not opposed to a judicious and careful use of government restriction. I think Sweden, for example, bans advertisments to kids under a certain age. I really don't have a problem with that (but I'm not wedded to it). Again I'm not sure that we're always defending personal freedom, instead we may be defending corporate freedom.

To back up my perspective, here's a definition of principled centrism from Beau Weston of Gruntled Center.

An excerpt:
A centrist wants to promote what is best for society, tolerate what is good enough, and prevent what is harmful.

Conservatives want to promote what is best for society, and prevent everything else.

Liberals want to promote all options (except the truly dangerous ones) as equally good.

Another rumination from Jack Whelan of After the Future:

I think that one of the mistakes that the libertarians make is to assume that the liberty proper to the cultural sphere is also proper to the economic, the third sphere in our social triad. But the essential principle that governs the economic sphere is obligation, not freedom. If freedom were the principle governing the economic sphere, it would lead to the law of the jungle in which economic might makes right.
... And while there have been many Americans who have tried to make the argument for minimalist interference by government in the economic sphere, and that the law of the jungle should prevail there, it is in the final analysis not one based on principle, but preference. We can argue about what is practical, what works best, but to make it a question of principle is misguided. .

Not sure if I agree with Jack, but, it is an alternative perspective.

Now, in your frame Brian, I guess I just have to fess up to being a part-time paternalist. I wish Karl Rove were around so he could help me turn the frame back around on you ;) (you fomenter of licentious indecency!)

Posted by: Adam at March 2, 2006 04:42 PM

And you never will, Brian! What's the point of 3 years of law school if not to argue one's way out of what appears to others (of lesser mind ;) to be inescapable arguments. Observe:

My desire to quash the meth epidemic has nothing to do with paternalism. Let us begin by establishing a definition. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. The issue of paternalism arises with respect to restrictions by the law such as anti-drug legislation, the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, and in medical contexts by the withholding of relevant information concerning a patient's condition by physicians. At the theoretical level it raises questions of how person's should be treated when they are less than fully rational.

If some moron wants to wall themselves off in an inescapable commune and smoke meth until they starve to death, that's fine by me. It's bad for him, but affects me very little. Unfortunately, that's not what meth users do. They steal to support their habit. They engage in violent encounters. They require emergency medical care for which they generally cannot pay. Worst, they breed and then cook up meth in the same pots and pans they use to make the baby's formula or food. All of these things hurt ME and my relatives, friends, and neighbors.

So you see, I do not justify my interference with the meth-addicted individual with a claim that he or she will be better off or protected from harm (though he will be, that is not the justification for the interference). Rather, I justify my interference in order to protect myself. Which may be selfish of me, but not paternalistic.

I eschew libertarianism not because I am paternalistic but because I have a broader concept of what harms me and my interests(the only justification for government involvement under most libertarian thinking) than your typical libertarian.

See? Told you I could do it!

Posted by: PatHMV at March 2, 2006 04:47 PM

Okay, Brian, reading your most recent comment, maybe we don't disagree that much. I agree that "paternalism" can be good or bad. However, come on, paternalism is a dirty word. It's like a toned-down form of calling someone a racist. I think everyone would say they are against paternalism, but that they would all define it to mean excessive government fiddling -- and each person will disagree with what exactly is excessive. You can get all etymological on me -- but you know as well as I do that etymology is not a reliable guide to present-day usage or definition.

Rather than smearing everyone less libertarian than you as a paternalist, just let's say that they're less libertarian than you (!), and then we can have a debate on the merits. I just think using charged words like these can shut down the debate if not used carefully.

Posted by: Adam at March 2, 2006 04:52 PM

Go Pat!

Posted by: Adam at March 2, 2006 04:54 PM

Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns. If a philosophy dictionary wants to define paternalism as exclusively negative, that's their problem. It's still inaccurate definition creep, and it leads to the sort of sloppy thinking that gets people very confused. Hiow can all of you miss that once upon a time some libertarians took rhetorical advantage by casting fatherly actions as always negative. They're not! We need to rescue ourselves from this lie.

Acting in a fatherly or parental manner can be good or bad. It depends. I think this insight needs to be preserved, so that when we have a discussion about a policy that appears to be "paternal," we still get stuck discussing its merits, instead of dismissing it as bad, just because the paternalism shoe seems to fit at a glance.

And I'm serious about this. Consider another example. Discrimination. Always bad, right? Wrong. We discriminate, meaning to make distinctions between things, all the time. It's the most human of acts. To BE is to discriminate, unless you can maintain the perpetual state of the uncarved block. [which, BTW, is the ideal state according to buddhists] Only particular forms of discrimination are objectionable, and only under certain circumstances. I've long since lost count of the number of times I've heard someone say "you can't do that, it's discrimination." And I've thought "of course it's discrimination. And in this instance it is bad because..._________"

Here's the thing: don't just give me a fitting name that allegedly proves something is bad. Show me why in this case the thing is bad.There are an awful lot of people out there who mistakenly think that if they can demonstrate that discrimination has occurred, they've proven that the actor has acted immorally.

So I'll continue to point out the potentially paternalistic aspects of various policy positions, and if you want to take that as a pejorative, that's got nothing to do with me. To do otherwise would be to let slide the opportunity for all people to understand potentially "paternalistic" policies in a way that's analagous to an experience that many of us are familiar with: parenthood, and the relationship between parents and children. We understand by analogical thinking SO MUCH. So I see great benefit in preserving the analogical connection embedded in the word, one which helps us understand.

Frankly, it's a truly misanthropic grotesquerie to claim that some policy becomes paternal only when it becomes unreasonably invasive. This definition essentiallly seeks to characterize the christian impulse to love thy neighbor as an invasion of individual sovereignty. The problem for capital L libertarians is that no man is an island.

And besides, I'm not even more libertarian than some here. Pat's views on meth addicts expressed above are WAY more libertarian. He said this:

If some moron wants to wall themselves off in an inescapable commune and smoke meth until they starve to death, that's fine by me. It's bad for him, but affects me very little.

See, I disagree. To know this was going on and to let it simply happen would be deeply unchristian, inhuman. Unmerciful. I believe this would diminish the humanity of each person who knows it is happening and allows it to happen. Serious drug addiction deprives people of the ability to make sane judgements, and our humanity demands that we at least investigate the circumstances and not simply look away. How could a humane person look on such suffering, such affliction, and simply declare it to be no more than the exercise of free will, without investigation? Here, to eschew such a small exercise of the "paternalistic" impulse is inhumane/

Of course, we may investigate only to find that there is nothing left worth saving, only a tortured soul beyond reasonable hope of redemption. In that case, the nature of mercy is IMO debatable.

Posted by: bk at March 2, 2006 08:49 PM

Brian, when I said it's fine with me, I meant that in the context of government intervention, not Christian charity and decency.

As for definitions, you are sounding like Humpty Dumpty, choosing what you want the word to mean. If you don't like as authoritative a source as the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy (which I chose simply because it came up first in Google), try these:

Answers.com: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

Wikipedia:Paternalism refers usually to an attitude or a policy stemming from the hierarchic pattern of a family based on patriarchy, that is, there is a figurehead (the father, pater in Latin) that makes decisions on behalf of others (the "children") for their own good, even if this is contrary to their opinions.

It is implied that the fatherly figure is wiser than and acts in the best interest of its protected figures. The term is however used derogatorily to stigmatise attitudes or political systems that deprive individuals of freedom, only nominally serving their interests, while in fact pursuing another agenda.

The Oxford English Dictionary: 1. The policy or practice of restricting the freedoms and responsibilities of subordinates or dependants in what is considered or claimed to be their best interests.

If you don't like those definitions, the problem you have is not with me but with all users of the English language. I'm not opposed to paternalism by fathers or to helping those truly incapable of making decisions for themselves. What I don't care that much for is government-imposed paternalism.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 2, 2006 09:21 PM

Brian,

You confuse me, and perhaps others on this board. You've tarred some of my previous ideas with the label of paternalistic, you posted a libertarian essay dismissing large swaths of concerns as "paternalism," appeared to clearly chide Pat for his paternalism . . . and now you claim that you are trying to say that paternalism is sometimes good! Huh?

Look Brian, it is not hard at all for people to react negatively to the term paternal. Why? Because the direct implication of paternalism is that the government is treating its citizens as children, and no one, not even technical children like teenagers, wants to be treated like that.

I understand your concern about "discrimination," but way back when, you harassed me about trying to change the definition of fundamentalist to facilitate discussion, and now you want to revert the definition of paternal. what?

I agree that we need to get out of "anything that could be considered paternal is automatically bad" (which frankly is what I thought you were advocating in the first place) -- but the term paternal, at least paternalistic in politics, I think is locked more or less in stone. Sometimes, it's better to get out of the hole than try to fix it -- as in when "liberals" became progressives.

I don't think anyone wants a "fatherly" government. Father-knows-best is NOT a good idea in government.

Rather than getting into a losing battle about the definition of paternalistic or discrimination, it's, IMO, more productive to change the terminology. If someone accuses a program of being paternalistic, a defender should say, "No, it's not. It's helping people make better decisions, it's helping parents raise their children (in the case of banning adverts to kids), or it's preventing the spread of crime, etc." If you say, "Yes it is paternalistic, but paternalism can be good. After all, fathers are loving providers and we could use a government like that," I think people are going to think you're nuts.

Could you imaging a politicians saying, "I'm in favor of paternalism" -- oh, you are are you ... big brother -- I mean father.

Rhetorical strategies like compassionate conservatism, or even Jon Edwards "two americas" would work better.

To use your language . . . frankly, Brian, I am a little suprised to see you advocating such an ape-sh!t crazy idea. ;)

Posted by: Adam at March 2, 2006 09:28 PM

Given the predictability of this blog (Day 1: designated day to bash anti-war left, Day 2: designated day to bash religious right, Day 3: it's back to bashing the anti-war left) it's refreshing to be debating political philosophies and ideas. For one thing, I think debates are more productive when they're no so partisanly driven. For another, it's kind of nice to know where everyone stands on such basic underlying concepts as freedom and the proper size and scope of government.

I think Radley is one of the better bloggers out there. For one thing, he let's you know what his political bias is upfront--he's a libertarian, and as far as I can tell, he applies his libertarianism rather consistently. Secondly, he's not a partisan hack, which, sadly, many self-described "libertarians" are (i.e. Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, Neil Boortz, Larry Elder). Thirdly, he's an equal opportunity offender--unafraid to criticize the left or the right when he feels there is a legitimate need to criticize them (i.e. when they're threatening to take certain rights away).

"Paternalistic" is a subjective term. Obviously, if you attempt to sort every law into "paternalistic" versus "nonpaternalistic", you're going to run into some gray areas. So basically, this is the way I look at laws.

1) Laws are not suggestions; they are government mandates backed by the threat of force. Because you have no choice in the matter, a law ALWAYS serves to limit your freedom.

2) Laws rarely (if ever) completely solve the problems which they were intended to solve when they were first drafted. In other words, you cannot expect to legislate a problem out of existence.

3) Laws ALWAYS have negative (and sometimes unforseen) consequences. The negative consequences of a law may or may not be outweight by the good that a law does.

4) You can be in support of a concept without insisting that a law be passed mandating said concept; likewise, you can be against a concept without insisting that a law be passed prohibiting said concept. In other words, a "pro-choice" position on any given issue is a politically NEUTRAL position that advocates that solutions be enacted voluntarily through private entities rather than by the force of government.

Based upon the four postulates above, this is why I might consider a law to be paternalistic:

1) The objective of the law is SOLELY or PRIMARILY to force individuals to conform to some "moral" standard (i.e. laws prohibiting the buying/selling of pornography).

2) The law punishes individuals from commiting victimless offenses or offenses in which the only "victim" is the perpetrator himself (i.e. laws against smoking pot).

3) The law mandates personal safety measures in cases in which simple common sense preclude the need for such a law (i.e. laws mandating the use of seat belts).

4) The law mandates a solution that has traditionally been a parental responsibility (i.e. laws prohibiting stores from selling certain types of movies/music/video games to children).

5) The law mandates a solution that could just as easily have been solved by the free market or has been implemented in large part by the free market already (i.e. laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars).

In criticizing Spurlock and Shapiro, Radley is not arguing that the subjects covered in these author's respective books are not legitimate concerns; rather, he's pointing out that both authors 1) have exaggerated the extent of the problems, and 2) have advocated that the government take away even more of our freedoms in order to "solve" these problems.

Spurlock, for example, praised a politician who sponsored legislation that allows the Federal Trade Commission to decide how restaurants market their foods to minors.

Shapiro, on the other hand, argues that We must press government to use the force of the law against pornography, obscenity, and indecency across the board…from TV to radio to the Internet, from music to movies.

Personally, I find Shapiro to be the more scarier of the two, but that's just me. I think they're both being paternalistic in that they seem to trust the government to make decisions about our lives more than they trust us.

Finally (for this post anyway), regarding this ongoing debate whether paternalism is good or bad, I'll simply say this:

BK, you are correct that the root of the term "paternalism" means father/parent and that to the extent that being fatherly or parental is a good thing, then being paternalistic is a good thing.

However, the government is not our parents, and as such, it has no business whatsoever in acting as if it is our parents (and we its children). Thus, in the context of defining the size and scope of government, paternalism is a bad thing. Paternalism drives politicians to believe that they "must do what is best for us" at any cost. The problem is that politicians often have a very warped view as to "what is best for us." Many of our freedoms have been lost due to paternalism on the part of the government.

Posted by: nicrivera at March 2, 2006 11:17 PM

Adam,

If I were a politician in a debate, and my opponent tried to make my policy suggestions sound bad simply by calling him paternalistic, I'd simply say, "So what? We sometimes want to protect our fellow citizens, it's the loving and christian thing to do. If this policy is a bad idea, tell me why. Don't give me a label." (Notice how easy it is to hide behind the bible. If pressed, I'd also have the flag and the children to protect me!)

As some of us already know, our culture indeed DOES have the need and indeed the responsibility to act in a parental or paternalistic way. With children, it is virtually unchallenged, but sucxh practices are NEVER called paternalism, because we all accept them as wise. We also accept paternalism as wise when adults have diminshed capacity, such as due to mental retardation or mental illness.

These practices sketch the current grounds of what the vast majority of us ALREADY accept as wise government exercise of authority. You can all go ahead and say such things are not paternalism, but go back and read Pat's definition first. When you do, notice this part: At the theoretical level it raises questions of how persons should be treated when they are less than fully rational. If you are paying attention, this definition tells you where the battle is going to be fought...the presumption of irrationality is what grants the government authority. LOOK FOR THIS ARGUMENT!!

Adam, I apologize for confusing you. I am prone to pointing out paternalism specifically to Pat precisely because he's more libertarian than I, so when he advocates certain things that could be viewed as paternalistic, I like to needle him. [His position is that if it seems like a good idea, it's not paternalism. Right Pat? Just kidding.] And with you Adam, well I like to see how people respond to such labels. When someone calls a policy "paternalistic" and they think they are landing a blow, be wise enough to know that what they are really doing is ceding the floor and giving you the opportunity to explain your true ratronale, if you view the policy as desirable, and are in fact troubled enough by a given problem that you feel our culture needs to take "parental" action to mitigate its negative effects.

Nic, you're tweaking and bolstering the definition in such a way as to allow you to keep paternalism as an exclusively negative concept. That's because you apparently are fairly libertarian yourself. Good for you. I like civil liberties too. In my opinion, the government's paternalistic impulses are legitimate in the instances I've sketched out, and we who cherish our liberties are well-served to try to keep the government on a short leash. There are plenty of examples of overzealous paternalism that IMO infringe unduly upon the liberty of fully capable adults who wish to exercise their own judgement free from government interference.

Others are debatable. Foir example, I think you can make an argument that if you refuse to wear a seat belt ONLY because the government has ordered you to, even though statistics suggest it's a pretty wise practice, that's not an especially rational viewpoint. Now if you don't wear one because you're comfortable with risks that you judge to be small, and have faith that when your time comes, it comes, I think that's a rational exercise of personal freedom.

And as Pat points out, there's plenty of room for government to exercise authority in cases where one individuals actions infringe upon others rights. I'd even submit that this "loophole" is sufficiently large to drive the vast majority of policy trucks through.

Posted by: bk at March 3, 2006 09:55 AM

I'm glad you noticed the size of the loophole I built for myself, Brian!

As I hope I have made consistently clear, I am not an ideologue of any sort. To me, the only world view that makes sense is the World According to Pat (and if only everybody would adopt that world view, we'd all be better off ;). I believe that most ideologues strive to fit human nature into their ideology (although they would tell you they are doing the opposite, designing an ideology which recognizes human nature).

Brian, that loophole can even be extended to the seatbelt issue (on which I take the libertarian side of the argument generally). When some moron suffers major damage in a car accident because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, I have to pay. Either through higher insurance premiums or through government-funded Medicaid or just through emergency room bills which are so high the guy can never afford to pay for them. Now, one could make the libertarian argument that everyone is free to not wear their seatbelt, but that by doing so, they waive all rights and claims to government-provided health care for any injuries suffered as a result of that personal choice. For better or for worse, however, our society is not and (in my opinion) will never be willing to strictly enforce such a concept. So the only way to keep from paying extra taxes to cover the medical damage done to morons who don't wear their seatbelts is to pass a law requiring them to be worn.

Now, I don't accept that argument and don't believe the government should mandate seatbelt usage (or motorcycle helmets). But it is certainly an ideological argument which can be made.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 3, 2006 10:22 AM

Precisely Pat. Precisely. This is indeed where the battlefront is today. For some time, we've largely subsisted on a genral principle wherein we recognize individual liberties to the extent that a given individual's liberty doesn't infringe on others.

But "infringment upon others" is being construed more and more broadly every day, and technology gives us ever more ability both to track and to curtial any activities which might be construed to infringe.

Notice that your pro-seatbelt law argument, which many pro seatbelt people would buy, can be fairly easily extended to a host of other things, if you are talking about the cost of insurance. Oughtn't we, under this rationale, outlaw twinkies, red meat, and booze as well? Aren't fat people, carnivores, and drinkers causing higher insurance rates, taxes, and so on for virtuous slim vegan teetotalers?

Foir the sake of privacy and reasonable peersonal liberty in an ongoing democracy, I don't see any good substitutes for Americans coming together and delcaring what things belong in a zone for the private exercise of liberty, for the tolerance of variance of choice depending on how each person construes virtue. Otherwise it'll get whittled away a little bit at a time.

People have ridiculed me for suggesting the possibility that someday people will get a surcharge bill in the mail from their health insurance company for buying that extra appetizer at chilis on the 27th that put you over your march allowance for saturated fat. Well we're even closer to auto insurance companies giving lower rates to people who agree to 24-7 monitoring devices in their cars. They're putting them in now, and giving discounts just for helping out with "research."

I'm a bit surprised how blithe people are about the prospect that almost every public action a person takes is becoming subject to recording, and then measurement, and eventually, to remote judgement. The judgement will come in the mail.

Watch as people embrace these things. "Geico's watching my every step, and I'm luvvvvvvving every minute of it. I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance." You'll love it until a GPS-aided computer reconstruction determines that accident was your fault, and so they'll be seizing your assets. Thanks for insuring with Geico, a division of Big Brother Holding Company. The appeal forms are at the poor house.

Posted by: bk at March 3, 2006 12:31 PM

Of course, Brian, my argument on the seatbelts can also be used by libertarians to justify keeping the government out of health care entirely. Then each individual can choose whether to get health insurance which acts paternalistic (at a lower premium) and health insurance which gives you complete freedom of choice over your lifestyle and eating habits (at a higher premium).

Posted by: PatHMV at March 3, 2006 01:50 PM

Then each individual can choose whether to get health insurance which acts paternalistic (at a lower premium) and health insurance which gives you complete freedom of choice over your lifestyle and eating habits (at a higher premium).

I dunno but that sounds good to me as a general principle. Health care is very expensive and it is major drain on the economy -- it just seems to me to be an extension of the free-market idea and of conservative principles even -- the natural extension of accountability.

I think the government should always ensure that the low(or no)-monitoring option be available and at a price that is tied to the actual increased cost to the insurer. There can be the el-cheapo Big Brother plan, the middling mother-in-law plan (which most people would select -- they want to be rewarded if they don't smoke for instance) and the libertarian plan. If a smoker can't afford the higher plan, then maybe they should stop smoking! Why should society be forced to carry the burden of their freely chosen behaviors?

Now I think it wrong to portray the situation as one of constant slippage of rights in this country -- I think if things get bad enough -- things will snap around. For instance, the cartoon flap has probably been a boon for the recognition of free-speech in this country.

Besides Brian, you're mister don't trust the slippery slope because we're already on the slope, so I don't trust your slippery-slope argument so much.

I, for instance, am a big fan of tying cost to behavior. You commit a crime with a gun, it's much more serious. You want to buy booze -- let's add some on to cover dui costs.

So let's legalize weed, but let's tax it enough to balance out the cost to society.

(It's what the Europeans do, and the fascists haven't overrun them yet.)

I think it's really a case of balance and of providing for options, as Pat pointed out.

See, I think this is a good balance. People can do crazy shit if they want to, but if that crazy shit is going to incur a higher cost to society -- tax it proportionately. As in the marijuana example, this could lead to MORE freedom NOT less.

See, I view Americans more as drunken teenagers (too much reality TV i guess) who want a free-lunch, then I do lone ranger types. I believe they should be able to do what they want -- but if it's costing society they should pay up. It's just like a company who's polluting. In this case, similarly, make those darn externalities internal!

But am I glad that people like you and Pat are around making us realize that not everything is mercenary and that we should very carefully examine government intervention and realize that convenience and money isn't everything -- freedom isn't free as they say.

See there are three positions in my view. People like you and Pat who say -- let everyone run around and party. Then there are people who say outlaw partying. And there are people like me who say if partying must occur, let them clean up after themselves. It's the cowboy vs. the fundamentalist cleric and I feel I'm in the cross-fire. It's just like Gruntled said above.

A centrist wants to promote what is best for society, tolerate what is good enough, and prevent what is harmful.

Conservatives want to promote what is best for society, and prevent everything else.

Liberals want to promote all options (except the truly dangerous ones) as equally good.

Posted by: Adam at March 3, 2006 02:30 PM

Adam, I'm not saying let everyone run around and party (you sure you didn't mean nic there?). I'm saying if they're locked away in a room where what they do doesn't impact me at all, they can legally smoke all the dope they want (leaving aside the issue of my Christian duty to help those who can't help themselves). But when they begin to impact me and the society I live in (as they inevitably do), then it's ok for the government to step in and criminalize their behavior.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 3, 2006 03:28 PM

Me neither. And I'm a hair further to the paternalistic side than Pat.

The libertarian argument is compeeling in some ways. Of course, the spot where it falls apart is when we notice, oh, crap, we really can't stomach letting people die in the street because they don't have health insurance or can't afford food or whatever.

The more libertarian will respond " oh we'll all just choose to help these people just enough, voluntarily." IMO we're better off making everyone pitch in to fund prevention or mitigation of the sorts of things most of us can't stomach letting happen.

You really don't get my slippery slope points, I'll have to school you some other time. I can trace a clear path of erosion of civil liberties. Stairs, slope, whatever. The pattern has long since emerged, ignore it if you want. IMO the battle is already lost. See you at the bottom.

Posted by: bk at March 3, 2006 04:26 PM

Criminializing the BEHAVIOR is the salient point. It's the behavior that causes the problem when it impacts another's freedom. That's why I think laws against speeding, or public intoxication or drunk driving need to be tough. Laws against possession of a controlled substance, OTOH, without the corresponding behavior are unnecessary and counter-productive.

Posted by: tim at March 3, 2006 04:34 PM

Adam, I'm not saying let everyone run around and party

I'm sorry Pat; I wasn't confusing you with Nic, I was just being sloppy with my language. By party I meant wear no seat belts, drive like a maniac, stuff your face with chocolate cake and bacon, and expect society to pick up the tab in the name of freedom.

Okay Brian, so what you were trying to say is that we should have stayed on the nice happy ledge at the top of the stairs on this issue because in this case the slope is slippery. Alright, I just said what I said because I thought you generally thought slippery slope arguments suck because they disallow the use of practical wisdom. But I will grant that sometimes genuine slippery slopes do indeed exist and this may be one.

But in this case, what erosion of civil liberties are we talking about? My God-given right to not wear a seat belt and other such regulatory measures like smoke-free establishments? I think it's clear that gay marriage will eventually pass, so that will be a GAIN. In the case of seatbelts, sometimes imo people need a little nudge because they don't always accurately assess risk. I think studies have been done which showed that it really took a law for people to wear seat-belts. Before that, people just blew off the statistics.

In a related vein, didn't we try allowing the age of drinking to be 18 but quickly moved it back up to 21 because accidents skyrocketed? I agree that we should be wary about paternalism -- and I'm of mixed emotion on hate speech and smoke-free establishments -- but I think sometimes the practical effect of saving 1,000s of lives years trumps the honest concern over imposition of government regulation (I'm talking seat belts here.) Maybe we should lean libertarian, but I believe in exceptions. What about that friendly circuit-breaker in constitutional law you so like, and Pat so despises? Where is he now?

In the case of no-smoking laws, why should servers and bartenders be exposed to the occupational hazard of second-hand smoke? If a few years of second-hand smoke can be shown to have significant effects on later health, that seems like a real occupational hazard (I don't know the data on this). You know the old saw about your rights ending at my nose? Well, I've heard that them smoke particles can diffuse quite easily out a smoking area into a smoking one.

I heard an anecdote once from a philo professor that a particular insecticide had been recently shown to have horrific consequences on health and that the appropriate regulatory agency let the exterminators know that they should stop using such agents. But they want on using it anyway -- only a law was sufficient.

Why can't we use pratical wisdom in these cases?

I understand that the above regulations are pretty sweeping and that you can't opt out, but I hope that with improvement in technology we will have greater flexibility. As I said above, I think it is reasonable to make externalities internal -- tax the cigarettes, charge higher premiums to bacon-slurping smokers, etc. What's wrong with that?

In fact, couldn't this worry of yours actually be a libertarian flavor of the moral panic. Of my God, the sky is falling -- those damn seat belt and helmet laws, before you know it big brother will have taken all our freedom.

I just think when things get too crazy, there will be a reasonable backlash and balancing of the ledgers. As long as we can vote and the bill of rights is intact, why this panic, why this chicken-littleism ;)? (You said: The pattern has long since emerged, ignore it if you want. IMO the battle is already lost. See you at the bottom.)

Posted by: Adam at March 3, 2006 05:16 PM

OK Adam, you'r making me blurt out a little chautauqua here. My basic take on slippery slope arguments is that every slope is different, so you really need to examine the nature of the slope. You don't get to suggest that a movement from one policy position to another will inevitably lead to the bottom of the slope. Try to prove it will if you can, but don't just say, "oh it's a slippery slope, lets not go there."

Usually such discussions have to do with a dispute over a "where do we draw the line" question. Again, circumstances vary. And that's why I like to say things like "well I think right now we have carved out a pretty good firm step on the slope..." "or a good place to put a step in the slope is.... ." It has to do with stability. I can't count how many times I've thought about ways to move a line or a standard, and discovered that the number of places where it can be done are actually limited to a just a few stable places.

I feel like you're imputing positions to me that I don't actually hold (is imputing the right word there, anyone?). I'm not against anti-smoking regulations. Smoke in bars and other public places was, IMO, a demonstrable nuisance. It's a shame that simple good manners were not enough to portect non-smokers, byut there's human nature for you. However, if someone wanted to open a bar or restaurant for smokers, and people were willing to take the jobs, anbd the owner would pay any extra health costs incurred, and no one was being co-erced, I think the state should butt out.

In general, it seems like a sound principle to expect people to be responsible for their "free" choices when they are big ones that, say, affect everyone's costs. But this in particular is a place where I feel like we don't have any sort of good place to draw the line. The more broadly such policies are construed, the more invasive the systemic micromanagement of each person's life. The other problem is that the data is so weak, yet this is unlikely to prevent people from going off half-cocked or even quarter-cocked. If we had really good data about diet and health risks and better ways to precisely quantify each of the gazillion conceivable risks human life holds, I'd be more sanguine.

Maybe I am chicken littling, but I doubt it. Keep watching, and see how you feel after another 5 or 10 years of watching. I'm 41 now, and I've watched the growth of petty oppressions for some time. The reason I say that the battlke is lost is because I believ this trend is simply a cultural manifestation of entropy, the irreversible increase in complexity and gumming up of the gears of life. None of us will know the freedoms some of our forebears knew unless we find a new frontier.

Posted by: bk at March 3, 2006 09:34 PM

Thanks for the chautauaqa, Brian. That's nifty --I should probably read some critical thinking texts. I guess I've been having trouble drawing the correct conclusions from your posts -- without details like these I'm not sure whether you're condemning all ss arguments or what.

Yeah, I also realized that I haven't been alive and alert long enough to recognize legislative creep. But you haven't answered my question. What petty oppressions are we talking about here? I'm unclear. I don't know what erosions you're talking about.

Sorry for incorrectly imputing ideas to you, but I've been feeling ornery, and you've been somewhat oracular, so I'm not sure what you're up to.

BTW, manichean means viewing everything in terms of a cosmic struggle between evil and good -- from the Manichees who were a widespread syncretic religious group in the first centuries of the common era. Augustine was one before his conversion. Also, BTW, I think uncarved block is a Taoist not a Buddhist idea, though I'm sure it was sucked by later Buddists -- I'm hip to it though. [you opened the door for these tidbits when you asked about "impute" and your use of "chautauqa" -- new word for me.]

Posted by: Adam at March 3, 2006 09:55 PM

Adam, I don't want everybody running around seat-belt-less and us then picking up the tab, either. One of the points I made in the alternative seatbelt argument was that I think we should deny government health care to such idiots, but that our society is fundamentally too soft-hearted to make such a decision.

As for drinking, the federal government in 1984 (under pressure from MADD) forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway construction funds. Because so many other anti-drunk-driving activities were underway in this country at that time, it's hard to separate out the effects of the lowered drinking age from other factors in traffic accidents and fatalities (though that doesn't stop MADD from making claims which are rather dubious when examining the statistics closely). I found one article which seems to take a fair and unbiased look at the statistics. According to it, the clearest pattern to emerge from the statistics is that binge drinking has been rising since 1993.

The last fact is particularly illuminating to this general discussion. As the article I cite notes, when drinking is to some extent an expected activity, so long at it is done within certain limits and societal expectations, then it's not that big a deal, and there are plenty of ways and opportunities to enforce moderation on the part of the young drinkers. When it is completely criminal and forbidden, well, then, once the kid decides to take any drink at all, the incentive to tone it down is gone, and there's little reason not to drink all you can while you've got a supply of the stuff.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 4, 2006 11:20 AM

My bad. Of course the uncarved block is taoist.

Here are a few petty oppressions:

all the things you need licenses or permits for, that you didn't used to need licenses or permits for

cameras at intersections

automated speeding ticket systems

helmet laws, not just for motorcycles, but for bicycles too, and coming soon to a ski slope near you

seat belt laws

noise ordinances

all other kinds of municipal "quality of life" ordinances, ranging from controls upon when you can do certain activities (like mowing your lawn or building a porch), to what kinds of signs you can put in your yard, the direction in which you must place a fence, the color you can paint your house, what you can put in your driveway, what you can DO in your driveway, when you can put your barrel at the end of your driveway, and most recently, an ordinance dictating when people must take holiday decorations down

the untrammeled growth of mandatory safety features, by law or code

prescription medication

legal blood alcohol limit decreased from .10 to .08 by federal arm-twisting

Those are just a few. Notice that I'm not claiming (at least not right here) that these things are therefore bad, or necessarily undesirable. It varies. Just notice that every time a safety standard goes up and everyone must comply at whatever the new dictated minimum is, a little bit of freedom of choice is gone, and notice that we have to pay for the improvements, they are not free. They cost money, time, or both.

I wonder what the death and brain injury rate of kids riding bikes (per mile driven, of course) was before they made helmets mandatory, and how much it has actually gone down. And I wonder how much we've spent on bicycle helmets.

Such a viewpoint is easily dismissable by those who see helmets as an unmitigated, no-brainer good. It's always that way when the costs are manageable enough for most of us to easily dismiss them. But economically, such dictates are very regressive. How much less inexpensive could we make a car if fewer safety features were mandatory?

Consider this: engineers could probably design a plane that could crash without killing its passengers in most instances. But because it would make a plane ticket cost 29 grand or whatever, we don't do it.

Posted by: bk at March 4, 2006 06:49 PM