Taking Liberties
The paternalistic war on drugs strikes out at Marc Emery. Maybe we'll have the sense to just say "no."
Jan Narveson - January 22, 2008
I heard an interesting talk last summer contrasting the "Old Paternalism" and the "New Paternalism."
Old paternalism says: "Here, this is good for you, so take it--we know what’s good for you better than you do!" New paternalism says: "Here, you agree that this is good for you, so take it, and no back talk--we know what will give you what you want better than you do."
Liberalism says that, for political purposes, the individual is the ultimate authority on what is good for himself or herself. Old paternalism is clearly conservative. But, ostensibly, the new paternalism is supposedly liberal. The individual is the ultimate authority on his own ends. The twist for new paternalists is that, of course, the individual is not an authority on what will conduce to these ends of his or hers: that’s for the experts--the scientists.
And so the door is open for supposedly well-meaning politicians to step in and, once again, with the authority of appropriate experts, push us around for the sake of our own good--only this time with our own imprimatur for the procedure.
There's an interesting similarity, despite the major difference. Either way, the individual must be protected from himself: "You didn’t realize it, but you are your own worst enemy! So, clearly, you need to allow us to be in charge."
But if the individual in question really was acknowledged to be that "ultimate authority on his ends," which is the fundamental claim of liberalism, can we really just ignore his views about what, as far as he is concerned, will achieve those ends? Shouldn't we present him with the evidence and let him decide for himself? If so, his view of what works or doesn't work for him would also be listened to. In fact, he’d be asked. The drug user, for example, can go into rehab voluntarily--if the cops haven't already clapped him in the brig.
What happens in contemporary nations, though, is that people elected by a sizable number of your neighbours are given the absolute authority to run your life for you. The claim that they are just doing what you really want is as old as the hills. Aristotle defended slavery on the ground that it was better for the slave. He didn't ask the slave's opinion on that matter, though--after all, being slavish by nature, how could he know? Right. So the person who takes marijuana, for example, is one whose view does not need to be consulted, since after all he's a druggie and therefore not responsible. Uh, huh.
In the U.S. today at any given time, several hundred thousand people are spending their days in jail cells on similar reasoning (only a few thousand in Canada, I understand). Self-righteous policemen and administrators put them there, and there they will stay--all for their own good, of course. Marc Emery, then, will of course be better off for spending the rest of his life rotting in an American jail instead of enjoying his daily dose in increasingly blasé Vancouver.
Page 1 of 2