The government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do, provided you are respecting the rights of others. Yes maybe public order is at stake and restriction leads to greater liberty, such as when we pay taxes for public goods. Or maybe the line between liberty and fraudulent behavior is hard to define and we should err on the side of restriction to limit criminal activity. Or maybe you can imagine a paternalism so "soft" (brussels sprouts in the SEC cafeteria?) that no one could rightfully call it coercion.
But in the majority of cases, government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do.
You can huff and puff and tell me all about socially constructed individuals and the moral arbitrariness of the market’s bargaining solution. But the more you chip away at the rights of the individual, the more you are weakening the case for the morality of state authority as well. On a day-to-day basis states are made up of acting individuals. Bureaucracy can, if used properly, be an enabler of individual autonomy. But the case for bureaucracy, when indeed that case holds, relies on the intrinsic and instrumental values of individual autonomy.
Knocking down the moral status of me — the victim — does not elevate the moral status of the guy who works at the Department of Agriculture. Should reading Rawls raise your opinion of The Ministry of Silly Walks?
I want my non-pasteurized, not-aged-for-six-months cheese!
If you agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, you should read David Harsanyi’s new and forceful Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning American into a Nation of Children.
Oh good, an economist unafraid to make enormous and unjustified metaethical claims. I wonder how he’d respond if a political philosopher or ethicist were so bold about making economic pronouncements.
My hint: In our discipline, it is considered good manners to not simply make assertions but also to back them up with some kind of argument. Why should we value individual autonomy (whichever defintion of that you’re referring to) above all other things? If you can’t answer that good luck with making your claim about the rights of government (whatever right are!).
If you agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, you should read David Harsanyi’s new and forceful Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning American into a Nation of Children.
You would probably also enjoy Michael Bywater’s excellent Big Babies, which makes a similar if broader point about universal infantilisation.
To be fair Tom, potatoes are poisonous if you don’t cook them and you don’t see a lot of labels on them. We in Finland are also mushroom obsessed so it’s only the foreigners who are likely to kill themselves.
Finnsense, your comment is odd. First, you write: “Why should we value individual autonomy (whichever defintion of that you’re referring to) above all other things?” The very first paragraph of my post stresses that I don’t value autonomy over all things. Then consider: “I wonder how he’d respond if a political philosopher or ethicist were so bold about making economic pronouncements.” This happens *all the time* and in fact I’ve published numerous articles in response, as has David Schmidtz. I consider it a great scandal of philosophy. Most generally, do you really think that trained philosophers are the only people qualified to hold moral views?
Uncooked potatoes are poisonous? I eat them all the time!
Safety regulations are simply the government’s response to the vast majority’s preferences for being insulated from risk.
This is naive. Many government regulations are designed to reduce competition *under the guise* of being a response to some great public safety concern. Do you think that there was actually a great groundswell of public opposition to the availability of unpasteurized milk, given that anyone who wanted to could buy pasteurized? There wasn’t. Rather, this was the outcome of effective lobbying by larger milk producers. Similarly, very few people are actually concerned about the grave risks posed by the availability of herbal medicines – the entire effort to bring them under the FDA’s purview (and probably ban them, more or less), is driven by corporate drug lobbyists. I will certainly concede that the public will generally go along with this kind of legislation, because it typically hurts only a small segment of the population, but it doesn’t occur as a ‘response to the majority’s preferences’.
Tyler,
You wrote “The very first paragraph of my post stresses that I don’t value autonomy over all things.”, which is not accurate. Your first paragraph accepts that government intervention is not always a bad thing but in your third paragraph you state that such intervention is only justifiable if it furthers individual autonomy.
You also wrote “Most generally, do you really think that trained philosophers are the only people qualified to hold moral views?” There’s an important difference between holding moral views and having moral intuitions. People will have various intuitions whether I like it or not but it is a taste, nothing more. If you’re going to wrestle with the issues and feel confident enough to try to convince others, then you need to be careful and yes, you do need to be trained. I very much doubt you would be as cavalier with economics as you are in this post with ethics. Maybe you’ll reply that you are just stating an opinion here but it really does look like an argument – and to the untrained a superficially compelling one. That’s a bit dangerous.
Tyler writes: “Most generally, do you really think that trained philosophers are the only people qualified to hold moral views?”
Answering a question with a question is an evasion. I think his point was why should we consider YOUR moral views to be worth anything? That burden is yours to bear, Tyler.
Tyler also writes: “The very first paragraph of my post stresses that I don’t value autonomy over all things.”
But then you proceed to write as if you’d never said it without any explanation beyond your say-so. As finnsense pointed out.
John Pertz writes: “Because it all starts at the individual. No matter what your philosophical outlook, you can only prove that autonomous individuals exist.”
No, John, that is merely a viewpoint. You are a collection of organs, which are collections of cells, which are collections of organelles, which are collections of molecules, which are collections of atoms, which are collections of yet simpler particles. And you are part of a collection of individuals which comprise a society, which is part of a collection of societies which comprise a biological species, which is part of an ecology, which is part of a planetary surface, etc. There are emergent properties at each level which are not obvious or easily described at other levels. Claiming only one viewpoint is primary or valid blinkers you to the important facts of the other levels.
I’m sure he’s to modest to mention it, but Tyler has a better publication record in the top journals of moral and political philosophy than most philosophers. He’s had papers in Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, and Social Philosophy and Policy. He has also co-authored papers with Derek Parfit, perhaps the greatest living moral philosopher. Anyway, this is beside the point, which is that intelligent social commentators should have well-developed moral views, whether they’ve published in Ethics or not.
John has hit the nail right on the head. If I had to continually decide for myself what foods were safe to eat, what drugs were risky and what weren’t, what child safety seat matches my personal balance between safety and cost, I would go out of my mind. There’s no question that the personal amount of liberty I enjoy would be greatly diminished if governments didn’t act as my nanny a good portion of the time, and I had to decide everything for myself. I assure you that any increased liberty you may personally experience from deciding to buy unpasteurized cheese will be overwhelmed by a million others who will view the exercise of this liberty as a burden.
I wonder how he’d respond if a political philosopher or ethicist were so bold about making economic pronouncements.
The difference is that economists have special insight into economic questions, while philosophers have no special insight into moral questions. Or much of anything, really.
It’s amazing how many people really won’t buy into this statement of mine: “But in the majority of cases, government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do.” Shame on you all!
Will Wilkinson,
You of all people should chime in here. I have some sympathy with Tyler’s politics (though for practical not ethical reasons) but as a philosopher, you really see nothing wrong with the polemical nature of this post?
I mistakenly assumed that the problem was that Tyler wasn’t aware of the unjustified (and most would agree unjustifiable) assumptions upon which his post rests for its credibility. Since that’s obviously not the case I wonder what his excuse is. Maybe he would argue he’s preaching to the converted and anyway it’s a blog post, but in my view it’s a bit cheeky.
As for your comment that “intelligent social commentators should have well-developed moral views” I agree. One sign of a well-developed moral view though, is that it is expressed with transparent assumptions and a nod to the complexity of these issues. “Government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do.” is not a sentence that possesses these qualities.
Frankly, I would be far happier if libertarians gave up using ethical arguments to support their position and focussed on the practical. It’s not as though American governments are so competent it’s hard to find reasons to minimise their involvement in anything.
It is insufficient for the FDA, USDA etc. to simply provide advisory information while always leaving the ultimate choice to consumers. People have a limited amount of information processing ability and a limited amount of time. Both time and attention are scarce resources. Consumers, myself included, will make bad decisions even when given lots of advice, simply because there is too much information out there to practically assimilate. I’m trying to imagine myself going through the grocery store with a handbook from the FDA advising me which brands are safe, and which are only on the shelves to satisfy risk-taking libertarians who can’t stomach anyone deciding anything for them. It would be hell.
Does the FDA sometimes act so as to reduce competition rather than to improve public safety? In some cases it may, but that is not an argument against regulation in itself. It’s an argument for reducing the influence of lobby groups on the decision-making processes.
Here’s a proposal … why don’t we open special “libertarian marketplaces” where all of the unpasteurized cheeses, cheap but untested child safety seats, and other products that libertarians are being “deprived of” can be sold? To shop there, you have to register and sign away all legal recourse in case you are poisoned, injured, etc. With any luck the differential death rate will have eliminated libertarian genes from the population in a couple of generations, and society will finally be freed from this debate.
why don’t we open special “libertarian marketplaces” where all of the unpasteurized cheeses, cheap but untested child safety seats, and other products that libertarians are being “deprived of” can be sold?
I would of course be happy with this (though I think the outcome you predict would not come to pass). And it’s not just libertarians that are being deprived, for what it’s worth.
Of course, product availability is only one part of the puzzle; there are also laws regarding the use of helmets, safety seats and so on.
too much information out there … going through the grocery store with a handbook from the FDA
It wouldn’t need to be that complicated. Foods (or any item) could have a sticker or other seal of approval from the appropriate government agency, much as kosher foods do today. Those who put credit in the government could look for the label. Those who believed the government was a shill for corporate interests could ignore the label. And you wouldn’t need the overhead of a separate set of stores.
bbartlog:
You have picked the choice “imperfect democracy” to refute my argument. Apparently you think that, say, the adoption of motorbike helmets can only come about if there is a specific pressure group advocating for it.
That’s not how things (always) work. People get elected more for their political philosophy then for specific promises they make. So if a bunch of supporters of the “nanny state” get elected and then proceed to implement such policies they are doing what is expected of them.
If you think that policies are being imposed that are at variance to what the majority desires, then the democracy is not working properly. This is not a philosophical problem, it is an implementation issue.
If you think this is the case then what should be under discussion is how to best restore democratic processes. If you think that this can never happen then you don’t think a functional democracy can exist. In that case what do you suggest instead?
The opposite of democracy is autocracy, or do you have something else in mind?
“If you agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, you should read …”
Wouldn’t it be better advice to say:
“If you _don’t_ agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, you should read …”
One word response:
Vioxx
If you think that policies are being imposed that are at variance to what the majority desires, then the democracy is not working properly. This is not a philosophical problem, it is an implementation issue.
More or less right. I actually hold both positions to some degree – philosophical opposition to the nanny state and a belief that majority desires are not currently being served. But the big problem is corporate influence on the process, which as you say is an implementation issue. A vastly more transparent government might help somewhat (though even then you need the electorate to care about corruption). Alternatively you could try to ban corporate influence somehow; it does tend to find a way regardless, but that’s no reason not to make an attempt.
The problem with leaving people to make their own choices about everything is that people are so demonstrably bad at it.
That is insufficient reason to destroy freedom.
Unfortunately for Mike Huben, it appears the FDA has forced the recall of his sense of humor.
I wish I’d thought of Mike’s third-world marketplace argument! And of course in a real free market, you get to hire contract killers to get rid of that neighbor whose backyard tire incinerator operation keeps stinking up your house and poisoning your kids…
The answer is that they already exist: they’re called the third world. bbartlog is apparently unaware that he can already get his psychic surgery or whatever other woo or risky products in any number of countries.
Hey, it’s a thinly disguised variation on the ‘love it or leave it’ argument! Now, if you could show that the existence of freer markets in (some) of these places actually made them worse off than they would otheriwse be, you’d be at least part of the way home.
Of course for most items, as you well know, the cost of traveling to the third world to buy them makes the transaction impractical. Nonetheless, it is true that the ability to buy online gambling services, drugs, and dental and medical services from unregulated or at least less-regulated providers overseas have been a benefit to Americans. And in the US, I have been able to find a reliable source for raw milk products. But most of these transactions (other than medical tourism) fall somewhat afoul of US law, and I wouldn’t advise trying to carry pharmaceuticals or most agricultural products back to the US on your person. So it’s not as satisfactory a solution as a free local market would be (or a local ‘libertarian store’, if you like).
We have to force Tyler to read Naomi Klein books more often. First his great review of that book, now his unequivocal take here…it would be interesting to run the “squishiness” of Tyler posts as a function of time since last reading something by Klein or Michael Moore….
Tyler = Alex – B1(time since last Klein book) + e
“The answer is that they already exist: they’re called the third world. bbartlog is apparently unaware that he can already get his psychic surgery or whatever other woo or risky products in any number of countries.”
Is this really a serious statement? Do you really view third world countries as “freer”? If you do, I think you gravely mistake what most people arguing for the expansion of individual rights mean by “freer.”
Most non-anarchists libertarian-types would say that a government that enforces laws to prevent the use of physical violence between citizens, provides sufficient military protection against foreign threats, and enforces private property and contract rights are preconditions to a free society. While third world countries may not restrict you from eating poisonous mushrooms, they also might not interfere if your neighbor decides to shoot you if you say or do something he doesn’t like. They might also arbitrarily decide to kill you, take your farm, or imprison you for undesirable political speech. Would you really characterize this as “freer”?
All in all, I would say your freedom, and the protection of your rights are clearly much LOWER in third world countries than they are in the United States, for reasons that have NOTHING TO DO with so-called “nanny-laws.” For your point to be valid, you would have to point out a country where the government effectively prohibits violent coercion between citizens, and protects private property and contract rights while also implementing fewer “nanny” type restrictions on individual choice.
Doug:
You do realize that things like the bill of rights are not natural constructs, but are themselves the outcome of democratic processes. Exactly which “rights” are vested in the people is arbitrary and varies from country to country. You have not disproven my statement that there are only two options, even though you went out of your way to be rude about it.
Sweden has an official state religion and the clergy are state employees (or was until 1999), but it was a democracy just the same. A democracy doesn’t define a specific set of rights, it defines a process.
Tyler Cowen doesn’t like some of the restrictions on his actions but his defense of his “freedom” is arbitrary and anti-democratic.
To the contrary. You said, word for word:
“What’s the remedy? From a philosophical point of view there are only two, one can accept the tyranny of the majority as one of the limitations of democracy or one can push for anarchy.
If one is interested in practical politics one has the option to push for change of those restrictions that one opposes. If you don’t like motorbike helmets then work to get the law repealed. If your arguments are convincing you may get your way.”
OR, as a THIRD OPTION, one could puch for a change in the restrictions placed on the government’s freedom of action, so that the government may not interfere with an individual’s freedom of action in certain areas REGARDLESS of whether the majoritity wants it in a specific instance. Speech is one example of an area that currently enjoys a certain amount of protection from government interference regardless of what the majority wants. Choice of safety equiptment use is an example of an area in which Tyler might like to see expanded protection from government interference. This would be no more anti-democratic that the First Amendment (recognizing that the First Amendment is, to some extent, anti-democratic, or at least anti-”majority rules”).
Under your false dichotomy as originally stated above, if Tyler doesn’t want to wear a helment on his motorcycle, he can either “push for anarchy,” or “accept the tyranny of majority.” He could either push to change the motorcylce law, or he could push to overthrow the government.
To the contrary, he could also push for restrictions on government power, for example by advocating a constitutional amendment restricting the government’s power to enact laws mandating the use of safety equipment generally. I do not know or claim that he does in fact advocate that, but if he did, he would be neither accepting the tyranny of majority, nor pushing for anarchy, nor pushing to repeal a particular enactment of Congress.
I recognize that such a position would require “democratic processes.” But I don’t agree that it fits in the description “accept the tyranny of the majority.” But if YOU think it does, then just what is the problem with libertarians? They’re accepting the tyranny of the majority, just like you want. Or do you think they are advocating something else, something sinister and “anti-democratic”? If so, what is it? Before you had some nonesense about libertarians wanting philosopher kings. What is today’s slander? Is Tyler inciting his readers to take up arms against the US Gov? Is he advocating a military coup? Just what anti-democratic measures are you talking about?
“What libertarianism ultimately boils down to is a dislike of democracy and the requirement that not everyone gets what they want. The petulant position libertarians adopt is juvenile and worse then the “nanny state” they abhor. It least the nanny state was installed in response to popular demand. You can’t get everything you want in life. Grow up.”
But I’m being rude by pointing out the absurdity and unfairness in the almost continuous ridicule and scorn you heap upon libertarians. Nice.
I don’t want a nanny state, it’s the other 300 million citizens….
Given the outcry when even one bag of contaminated spinach passes through a supplier’s screening and like, what, 100 people nation-wide get sick, is it really that tough to believe that people are REALLY REALLY risk-averse to this sort of stuff and (in general) want the government to protect them? You can see nation-wide preferences not only in how they vote but how they consume TV and print coverage of such “scandals” and how readily they’re eaten up by the CNN and Fox-watching public. You can see it in the boycotts of Chinese products immediately following the lead paint thing earlier this year.
Do I think it’s stupid that I couldn’t get spinach anywhere at all even if I wanted to this time last year? Sure. But it seems that the rest of the country disagrees, so that’s what we get.
If Dr. Cowen’s post is protesting this desire for insulation felt by the general public, then I agree with him. If he’s claiming that our current system is not in line with the public’s preferences on “nanny-ness”, then I heartily disagree.
Jean Gault says “The problem with leaving people to make their own choices about everything is that people are so demonstrably bad at it.”
You’re forgetting Nelson’s Dictum: there is no such thing as a problem; there are only unmet business opportunities. If people are bad at making choices, then entrepreneurs can help people reduce the number of decisions they make. In India, both veg and non-veg food is available. In some places, they’re side by side, so you see a green circle on veg food and a red circle on non-veg. You will see many “Pure Veg” restaurants who don’t need to bother.
Indians manage to do this — why are Americans so helpless? (read the book.)
The problem with leaving people to make their own choices about everything is that people are so demonstrably bad at it.
Sadly, if you rely on the government to make choices about things you are therefore relying on people to make choices about things. There is no striking reason to believe that people in government are particularly smarter and wiser than people in the private sector, and people in government are on the whole more insulated from the long-run consequences of their choices.
Consequently people in governments are demonstratably bad at making choices. Some examples:
– The NZ government subsidised farmers to bring marginal hillside land into production rather than leaving it covered with scrub. This is now contributing to flooding problems.
– The evidence behind the food pyramid, with its heavy base of grains, is at best dubious.
– The NZ government at one stage sent nurses into the home of new mums heavily recommending a strict regime of feeding babies every four hours, no more, no less. A fair few mothers at the time discovered that their babies were losing weight on this regime.
– There is a scandal in France over the failure of the government to test the blood supply for Aids back in 1985, as they wanted to wait for a French test rather than using the American one.
– The failure of schools to adopt a proven method of teaching reading like Direct Instruction is harming millions.
If you have an alternative means of making decisions that does not involve humans at any key point, please let me know.
Tom,
“Rather than arguing that government doesn’t have the right, which it pretty clearly does – why not start pushing for constitutional amendment to add freedom of grocery shopping to the constitution? *That* is playing by the rules.”
Maybe you need to reread the Constitution and pay attention to Amendment #10….
The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the people.
Government is where we choose to channel violence, because the alternative (the private sector) gives much worse results, as the history of privately owned states (monarchies, dictatorships, and other despotisms) and private “law” such as slavery, mafias, warlords, etc. show rather clearly. We have constructed a government that is jointly owned by all, because private ownership gives too much incentive for profit through coercion of others.
The private sector is not benign: it would be far more rapacious than representative government if our government didn’t curb those practices.
“Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” (George Orwell, 1945)
The pro-government people are wildly overstating the benefits of regulation in the U.S. Government in this country makes roads. Are they safe? No, we have the least safe roads out of any of the industrialized nations. However, governments in other countries make roads and many of them are very safe in terms of auto fatalities. The point I am trying to make is that the type of government, culture, and ethnicity of a state have a LARGE effect on the efficacy of government action. Too many people in the comments are assuming a HYPOTHETICAL government that is designing both well intentioned and well thought out public policy. Is there any evidence of this kind of policy in the U.S. As a U.S citizen I trust markets much more as a regulatory body than I do the government. The benefits of Whole Foods, Walmart, Publix, Wegmens, Best Western Motels, or Underwriter Laboratories can not be stated enough. I trust those institutions precisely because they are reliant on consumers.
“Government is where we choose to channel violence, because the alternative (the private sector) gives much worse results, as the history of privately owned states (monarchies, dictatorships, and other despotisms) and private “law” such as slavery, mafias, warlords, etc. show rather clearly. We have constructed a government that is jointly owned by all, because private ownership gives too much incentive for profit through coercion of others.”
I’m gonna go ahead and give a big “so what?” to that one. Once again, my point was that the means used by the government to make an intervention (i.e. violence) should be considered aside from and in addition to the merits of the intervention itself. If violent means are not warranted, they should not be used, period. Not by individuals, not by corporations, and not by the government. If the intervention still has merit, even though it is not enough to warrant violent enforcement, then the government needs to find other means to make the intervention that don’t involve violent coercion (voluntary government certification, to give one example).
Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that a law or regulation is enforced with the threat of violence and asking people if the government really has the right to threaten violence to enforce that particular policy. Nothing you have said challenges that notion in any way.
I went to a cheese tasting at Whole Foods and the instructor (a local cheese monger) blamed the industrial dairy lobby for the silly restrictions on imported cheese.
On the subject of nanny-statism, has everyone seen the HillaryCart?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=shopping-cart-goes-high-t&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters
It nags you if you buy too much junk food. Imagine the possibilities for busybody bureaucrats!
“I find it a bit frustrating for people who use public roads and benefit from public education and public defense and public roads to suddenly get turn around and say ‘no health insurance for the poor’.”
HUH? Who said no health insurance for the poor? I thought this thread was about regulations that prohibit people from doing things that are really none of the government’s business. Why should my use of public roads entitle the government to tell me what kind of cheese I should eat? Or forbid me from taking experimental medications if I get terminal cancer? What does that have to do with health insurance for the poor?
I understand that some people are against health insurance for the poor, and sometimes those people are also against excessive regulations, but not everyone who is against excessive regulations is also against health insurance for the poor. So why bring up health insurance for the poor in thread about excessive regulation?
We are professional cheap kids shoes online store .We provide Nike shoes cheap ,Nike air jordan,cheap kids clothing
cheap womens clothing,Nike shoes online store,Nike shoes cheap,Nike shoes for kids,air jordan sneakers,nike air jordan,air jordans,brand shoe,shoes brand, dropship Nike shoes , brand clothes,brand clothes ,shoes brand,cheap kids clothing for cheap wholesale Air Jordans shoes for kids & women.
Comments on this entry are closed.