The state, the individual, liberty and paternalism

1
The state, the individual, liberty and paternalism

• This session is about the ongoing battle between
  libertarians and realists. It comes up a lot in
  debates
• Heres the essence of the arguments in
  non-philosophical pro-debate form.

2
Autonomy

• Either I own me, or all of you own me Clearly
  I own me Richard Lau, WUDC Quarterfinal
  2009/2010
• Having full control over ones acts has lots of
  implications for philosophers. For example
• People owe no product or service to anyone else
  unless contracted to do so (Hence states enforce
  contract law)
• People own their work and the benefits they
  accrue from it. I.e. Resulting from their
  inalienable bodily autonomy their work is also
  inalienable. So, Tax?
• Lets examine these.

3
Autonomy infringing autonomy

• People should not have total choice over their
  actions
• E.g. People shouldnt murder, as this disrupts
  the autonomy of whoever they kill.
• This creates an idea of positive freedom.
• The state restricts rights in order to protect
  everyones autonomy at the sacrifice of peoples
  right to kill etc.
• Ceding rights in order to gain protection implies
  some sort of social contract with the state.
• There are problems with this it is one-sided.

4
Tax, Drugs?

• Libertarians are against income tax because
  they believe they own the products of their
  labour.
• They are even more against progressive taxation
  they have no moral obligation to agree to the
  social benefit that the state is trying to
  create.
• They are against the banning of drugs, as
  empirically taking drugs will only harm
  themselves.
• Fundamentally, poor people and junkie haters have
  no right to take control of their actions.

5
Can we see the less insane side please?

• Is it unreasonable for a state to impose moral
  obligations on non-consenting libertarians in
  order to make society better?
• Is the role of the state simply to maximise
  freedom or does have other objectives?
• In this side of the coins ideal world, the state
  would serve simply to protect its citizens from
  other citizens, protect itself from other states,
  and enforce contract law between its citizens.
  The tax it needs to get money to do this should
  be indirect.

6
Paternalism

• It seems more intuitive that the real version of
  the state is to maximise happiness.
• This basically involves preventing harms wherever
  they outweigh benefits.
• In debates on legalising stuff, paternalists will
  inevitably take up opposition.
• In debates on banning stuff, they will inevitably
  take up proposition.

7
Lets sort this tax thing.

• Theres a difference between the fruits of
  ones labour and the labour itself
• You can physically take money from somebody, but
  taking their work involves an action from
  another. Thats why we cant enslave people but
  can tax them.
• Hence all contracts, including the social
  contract (dont ever call it this by the way
  talk about reciprocal rights) can take money off
  people.
• Its not like the state doesnt offer things in
  return, to gain the fruits of your labour you
  inevitably use something provided by the state,
  even if it is just contract law and protection

8
Restricting rights

• And the reason why peacocks have this problem,
  is because they dont have a state. Eoghan
  Casey, EUDC Winner this year.
• Some actions necessarily leading to harming
  others. So we ban them. However, what about
  actions which harm yourself e.g. Drugs?
• There are harms here, but they are indirect
• The choice-maker is generally accepted to be
  irrational

9
Rationality in paternalism

• The libertarian would say that nobody can
  evaluate and understand their choices but
  themselves.
• However, take for example children, who are
  subjected to the wiser more rational will of
  their parents, who are generally accepted as
  knowing what is best for the child better than
  they do.
• Heroin kills people. Rational people shouldnt
  want to be dead. Hence the states banning of it
  is legitimised as there is a harm which is
  irrationally judged.

10
Irrationality continued.

• If I get drunk, it is reasonable for my friend to
  take my car keys from me due to an incompetence
  in making choices on my part.
• The reason we have free healthcare and education,
  is that some (especially poor people) would make
  the irrational decision not to pay for it were it
  privatised. Hence the state taxes people and
  ensures that everyone gets such an essential
  benefit.
• Economists call these externalities

11
Collective action

• If the state didnt build roads, would people do
  it?
• In such a large project, everyone would need to
  chip in (say a fiver) to make sure the road got
  built
• If anyone is familiar with game theory, this is
  the choice people face which would you choose?
• So we need a state to do stuff we all need.

Action Others chip in Others dont
I chip in Road!!! -5 No road ? -5
I dont Road!!! No road ?
12
In a debate...

• Peoples right to choose versus preventing harms.
• Talk about how the state can never make my
  choices for me because I always know best on one
  side.
• Really emphasise the harms on the other and
  explain why irrationality is playing a part.
• Identify where there would be a collective action
  problem, and why the state should intervene.
• Talk about where we restrict rights.
• To preserve freedom/prevent harm

13
In Summary

• People have lots of rights and autonomy.
• Arbitrary big nice guys like states are useful.
• Peacocks need states.
• Taxing someone is possibly the most horrible
  thing you could ever do to someone.
• Take all this stuff and use it in debates. You
  will win things

14
Motion

• THW Legalise the Ownership of Handguns.