Paternalism

It's funny the things you notice and think about at a stop light. The traffic camera just to the right of the stop light. Government as voyeur. Peering into your life, ostensibly just to monitor traffic and send out speeding tickets. Welcome to 1984. Or maybe New World Order, 52,000,000 people loving the soma. Amazing.

I look to my left, and there's a man, probably mid-40's, in an older model, small pickup truck. Probably a work truck. You know the look of a work truck when you see it. Older model, a few dents and rust for character, perhaps needing a new paint job. The white paint riddled with chips and occasionally baring metal. But that's not what was particularly interesting about this truck.

The driver had one hand, his left hand, on the steering wheel. With his right hand he was alternately sipping coffee and smoking a cigarette. For whatever reason, probably the whole driving thing, he never took his left hand off the wheel. He would set his coffee down, pluck his cigarette from the ashtray, take a puff, return the cigarette to the ashtray, and pick up his coffee. The zero sum game of vices. In order for the coffee jones to win, the nicotine jones has to lose. For the nicotine jones to win, the coffee jones has to lose. The light turns green and the truck's manual transmission lurches and labors away from the light. I pull away from the light and the truck begins to disappear in the rearview mirror. But the dance of vices lingered. It's funny where mental meanderings begin.

Similar to the zero sum game of vices, western thought performs its own zero sum dance. If you don't believe me, just listen. It's in the judicial system, political discussions, and our daily decision making--like deciding whether to smoke or drink coffee.

Within any of these environments you will hear one idea, or perspective, advanced to destroy or subordinate an opposing viewpoint or idea. An adversarial way of thinking. For one to exist the other must be destroyed or subverted. In fact, I ran across an example of this type of thinking on this site.

I recently published a post discussing the Colorado smoking ban. In it I addressed what I think is a fallacious argument advanced by disgruntled smokers. The focus of this discussion was whether or not smoking is a right. In response someone authored a post indicating that the smoking ban was an example of the state as parent and that it's just wrong. I don't know. I could agree that it's paternalism, perhaps. But I don't know that I agree with the assertion that it's wrong.

When we're discussing paternalism and its opposing viewpoint of autonomy, what we are discussing is the notion of individual freedom. Those that ascribe to paternalism generally believe powerful individuals, or the hegemony of powerful organizations, are the primary threats to individual freedoms. Therefore, in order to stem the hegemony, the law should regulate private transactions to ensure that various transactions are truly borne of free will. While autonomists hold it true that government is the primary threat and, so, the government should always facilitate, rather than regulate, individual freedom and choice. So it would seem that this tension could never be fully assuaged.

If the court always selected for autonomy, then all contracts entered into would be enforceable, even if one party entered into the contract under threat of death. After all, he entered into the contract rather than die. So he made the choice. On the other hand, if the court always selected for paternalism, then there would never be a transaction or decision free from judicial and government intervention. So the court really can't always select for either of these policies.

Rather the courts have to adopt a pragmatic attitude. Sometimes a policy that's given a lot of weight and consideration in one context, isn't given quite as much consideration in another. Each case is considered individually and a result is arrived at by trying to predict the consequences of the decision. At times, it's thought adopting autonomy will yield the most beneficial result. Other times, paternalism.

So I agree that the smoking ban is probably an example of paternalism. I also agree with the courts/government that it's the most beneficial policy in this context. If you hate that, well, relax, autonomy will probably rule the day next time.

You know, it just occurred to me. Maybe the truck driver was just exercising a little pragmatism. I guess perception and attitude is everything.