Meta Excess

"If you ask, "Should we let Group A stop Group B from doing X if the A's think this is for B's own good," no one answers with a blanket Yes. Actual paternalists will only answer after they know some details abut A, B, and X."

OK, but the problem is there are lots of X's out there. Why does one get addressed while the rest don't. Robin is right to ask for a framework, because far and away the tricky part here is in determining where paternalism should stop.

You have an intelligent paternalist deciding to stop cocaine without explaining the framework for his decision. You can talk about particular examples, but that is just another way to get to the heart of the matter, which are what principles you will use to make up your mind.

Lot's of otherwise sensible people have used cocaine without significant harm to anyone. Why not stop serving alcohol at bars to patrons who drove there? What about steak and cheese subs? Motorcycles?

The meta debate needs to be had. So long as we keep looking at the specifics, the debate will go nowhere and the two sides will continue arguing in a vacuum.

yes but Robin's point as I can see is that you CANNOT just do this for specific instances without taking into account the meta-framework thats unmentioned (but which exists in the organisation anyway!).

Isn't Robin really asking for a debate on social vs. libertarian principles generally? Those are the most boring debates ever.

If we want to get-or keep-it down to real issues, there must a libertarian chart somewhere, like:

government health-retirement insurance/forced savings: programs for everything, ....., right to opt out of some/all, no programs

rights to say whatever you want: all (i.e., no gov't restrictions on your right to say anything at all and no government-permitted actions for any [true] statements, national security limits, privacy limits, socially-preferred group limits...

freedom to contract: no limits (slavery contracts ok), subject limits (no sex contracts but prenups okay), competency limits, consumer protection limits, ....

freedom to take risks (other than contracts): commit suicide, take any drug/any drug except heroin and cocaine/only alcohol and pot/only pot), ride a bike without a helmet, buy pre-salted prepared foods.

A blog debate focused on cases works better than a debate focused on principles, as long as you're looking at several cases at the same time. A "Libertarian/Socialarian Spectrum" chart would be great.

@Contemplationist

I agree!

If you ask, "Should we let Group A stop Group B from doing X if the A's think this is for B's own good," no one answers with a blanket Yes.

Really? I've met people who would.

If you think the judgment of the Group A's should be distrusted (even -- nay, especially -- if you are one of them), then Hansen's insistence is so, so important.

@Noah:

I agree with you, if Group A is "the state" or "the majority" or "society" then, yes most collectivists (including social democrats, and social contract theorists) of all sorts will say Yes.

The use of "Meta" pre-fixed to just about everything discussed has gotten to be absurd, even on samizdata.net.

Why not say what you mean; what you intend to convey?

It's been a while, but I don't think I used "any positive amount of cocaine use" among my examples of things so obviously stupid that the very fact that someone wants to do them means that they need someone else to paternalistically make their decisions for them.