Comments on: Paternalism Parable

By: George Kahrimanis

George Kahrimanis — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:49:07 +0000

Imo a more extensive study might well delve into not only public arguments but also ulterior motives of “advisors” and study cases of bad “advising”, such as (I presume) the recent debacle with the polugamous sect in Texas. Although sometimes paternalism is well motivated in principle (say, anti-trust legislation intended to prevent domination by a monopoly, and regulation of medical practice is intended to protect the vulnerable patients) yet the devil lies in the details.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:15:59 +0000

I wonder what is the summum bonum of society as a whole (if, unlike former PM Thatcher, you allow yourself to postulate such collective entities), and who is to bear the cost for the reckless choices of individuals aside from the individual in question? Doesn’t moral hazard enter into the analysis? Or is the characterization of another’s behavior as “reckless” an arrogant, insupportable assertion on its own?

By: Sister Y

Sister Y — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:46:39 +0000

Richard, yes, but I think part of Robin’s point is that it’s easy for an agent to exaggerate his objectivity and access to better evidence, perhaps without even meaning to do so.

By: Caledonian

Caledonian — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:34:23 +0000

Thomas and Ben, by his words and deeds he isn’t obviously trying to commit suicide – he is just taking more of a risk than perhaps you think appropriate.

Appropriate? How is it appropriate to apply one’s own preferences to random people and situations about which little is known?

There have been societies in which it was asserted that the State owned its citizens and possessed a right to their labor, such that attempting to kill yourself was considered a crime , a treason against the State. The most common penalty for that crime was death.

That says a great deal about the sorts of thinking you’re implicitly advocating.

By: Ben Jones

Ben Jones — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:29:44 +0000

But what if, aside from the whole cliff thing, he seems no crazier or immoral than most? What if his action mainly affected only him?

Apologies Robin, I misinterpreted this bit as a ‘rational-looking suicide attempt’.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:30:59 +0000

Ping, my conclusion is mainly that his is a a subtle topic, and deserves careful consideration.

Thomas and Ben, by his words and deeds he isn’t obviously trying to commit suicide – he is just taking more of a risk than perhaps you think appropriate.

By: Ben Jones

Ben Jones — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:24:46 +0000

Personally, I’d want to make sure this kind of suicidal thought process doesn’t become a precedent. So I’d grab the guy and beat him to death before throwing him over the cliff. Wouldn’t want him to survive, have a change of heart, and start pumping those silly ideas into the gene pool.

Instinct isn’t paternalism, so I’m not fond of the analogy. But in all honesty, I’d grab the guy and try to talk him round. I’m not issuing a decree outlawing suicide here, I’m having a natural human reaction and trying to save a life. I have prior experience of having had irrational intentions, and been grateful to someone for talking some sense into me. With that in mind, the pros of asking the guy if he’d like to chat about what’s on his mind outweigh the cons – both at first glance and on reflection.

By: ThomasR

ThomasR — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:56:31 +0000

The very fact that you’re able to grab him justifies your doing so, because a sober and harm-free suicide attempt would have no surprise witnesses.

By: Ping

Ping — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:48:01 +0000

I don’t get it. Your paper doesn’t seem to actually say much of anything. It just asks many questions and proposes very few answers. By the time you reach your “conclusion”, I don’t see substantial points that you’ve presented to support it — you just seem to pose a lot of questions and then decide that you’re right. If you’re so sure your position is correct, why don’t you establish the argument directly?

By: TGGP

TGGP — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:09:42 +0000

Jeffrey Friedman has some interesting critiques of majority rule you can find from here. Where he differs from Bryan Caplan is that he believes the better-informed elites are dogmatic ideologues and we can not confidently say it would be best to leave policy up to them.