2 thoughts on “Why can’t nanny state campaigners at least admit that they’re anti-liberal paternalists?”

  1. Posted 14/11/2017 at 17:33 | Permalink

    Two points: Economic rationality is a sub-variant of rationality generally. It appears to be the case that a majority of adults who smoke, wish to give up, but are unable to. ie they are addicted. If a person is addicted to anything, then their freedom to desist is restricted. It is not the case that they are rationally pursuing something that gives them pleasure. In a sense they are enslaved, and the pleasure has long subsided.
    Furthermore, life, and continuing to remain alive must be absolute goods, in the ordinary, as well as the economic sense. To jeopardise that is thus a profoundly irrational behaviour. It is reasonable for the organs of governance to protect people from the consequences of this limitation.
    The social nexus makes these issues ‘public’ Smokes etc. have partners, employers, employees, children and so forth whose well being is compromised by these behaviours.

  2. Posted 15/11/2017 at 23:12 | Permalink

    I can agree on most of that but not smoking. It constitutes a risk to by standers. Apart from the risk of death, it smells foul. I used to have to spend my workdays in offices with smokers. I was never free of the smell. Smokers had their day without taking any respect or concern for others. Revenge is best served cold. Tastes good.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.