Thursday
Feb212008
Liberal paternalism and the bully state
Thursday, February 21, 2008 This evening I shall be at Balliol College, Oxford, addressing members of the Oxford Hayek Society. Inspired by my friend Julian Le Grand (left, HERE), I shall be talking about "Liberal paternalism and the bully state". If you have any personal examples of the bully state (other than the smoking ban) drop me a note NOW and I'll try and squeeze them into my speech. Deadline: 6.00pm
Reader Comments (7)
I only have one comment on the idea of 'paternalism' (I think you covered the term 'libertarian paternalism' perfectly when you described it as an oxymoron).
I (like all of us, I strongly suspect) had a father. My father brought me up to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. He was not a bully, he did not issue edicts, he did not dictate. He advised, conveyed his own wisdom from his own life experience (which was vast), taught me to think for myself and to reach my own conclusions. He was there when I needed him, would help me when I asked for it,but would never force 'help' upon me. He encouraged me to find my own way, to be my own person, to find and pursue my own gifts. To understand that my mind was the most important thing I had, and that my body was secondary to it.
I loved my father more than I have ever loved anyone in my life. He was a great man and was perfect in my eyes.
I do not need nor want another 'father'. I find the very idea that a government adviser wants to 'paternalise' me deeply offensive. As if they could ever do a better job than my own father.
I'd really rather they'd just sod off and leave me alone, frankly. I'm old enough to think for myself, risk-assess for myself, and make my own decisions, thank you very much.
Oh, I meant to add, the message I'm getting from this 'Libertarian Paternalism' concept is:
"Your body belongs to The Fuhrer!"
I can't see any other way to interpret it. Of course, we all know that Hitler was a great Libertarian (!!!)
Farming has been under attack for sometime from this Government and we import so much of our meat from overseas.
Organic meet whilst lovely to taste and more ethical to breed and kill is too expensive for many people.
I wonder,if in time,joe public will be forced into a vegetarian diet and of course,eating GM crops?
The state would have to brainwash us for a number of years but I am sure they are up to the job.
Hi Simon
I sent this email to mentalhealthbill@dh.gsi.gov.uk in the hope that it may spark some thought, though I must be madder than I thought to expect that!
Anyway, here it is:
Dear Sirs
I have listened with interest to the talk about the above and in principle I have to agree. The problems however arise with support care, such as counselling and CBT courses, for example, both of which I have problems accessing because of work.
I have actually just completed a CBT course, but the only way I could do this was to reduce my working week to 4.5 days, which has cost me £100 per month for 4 months - this is not a small amount of money to lose and has had an impact on my finances.
I work for a small company who support me in every way they can, but they cannot afford to pay a member of staff full time pay for part time work. I was fortunate in that I was only off work for 6 or 7 weeks in 2006, however, I still felt that I was not ready to go back to work when I did, however, as I was then only receiving SSP, I had not choice as bills still need to be paid - this in itself prolongs the problems with stress and anxiety.
I began counselling through MIND in January 2007. This is provided by a voluntary counsellor who kindly agreed to start an hour early to accommodate me and allow me to negotiate some compromises at work. Part of the problem here was that the counselling, as was the CBT course, was 6 miles in one direction from home and work is 12 miles from home in the complete opposite direction!
In order for people with mental health problems to continue in work or return to work, then the support services they need have to be accessible outside of normal working hours as trying to juggle this just results in further stress and anxiety and ultimately many people going without the support they need, which must have a long term impact on getting people off long term sick benefit.
I realise that private counselling would probably be available 'out of hours' but many people, myself included, are just not in a position to afford this and have to rely on the NHS or charities such as MIND, who do a brilliant job. I had to stop counselling in order to take up the CBT course, despite my counsellor being convinced there were still a number issues yet to be worked through and I have to agree. This is now just something waiting to erupt again, I feel, even though the CBT course was extremely beneficial, in many cases, where problems are so deep rooted, one short course is not always enough. It helps in the short term, but I am not too confident about the long term.
Essentially, what I am saying is that much more support needs to be available for people who work but suffer from mental illnesses, such as stress, anxiety and depression, many of these symptoms, unfortunately, brought about by Government policy and social bullying.
I have to say, Simon, that I trod a little carefully in the hope of getting some positive response (there I am in Cloud Cuckoo Land again!), but to me it is just another example of the Bully State we now live in, as everything seems to be about forcing people into doing what the government want, rather than educating people and, in this case, ensuring that proper support is available - if they can't provide enough of this support during normal hours, which they can't , how can they expect to support people once they are back at work? Yes, being at work probably is beneficial to many of us, but not without the support network that we need, that can put a lot of people back to where they started, or worse!
Anyway, Simon, to me, these ideas of the government are just another example of that sounds good, lets do it, without giving any thought to all the repurcussions or thought to investment that is required to see the plan through. They just seem to think that if it sounds like a good idea, it must be and they just have to pass it to make it so! Most ideas, however good, have ramifications, some more drastic than others, but to force people, especially those who already have mental health problems (and these are far more than is realised as many people have a problem but are not yet aware of it!) into a corner, which is what the suggestions sound like, with no suitable support system in place is asking for trouble and really could backfire spectacularly, which, in some ways would be good as it would be a whole load of egg on the face for the government, but on the other hand, how many people will suffer in order to show these politicians up for the shallow, self centred, pompous idiots that they really are?
I doubt you'll have time to read through all this before you go Simon, but plenty of examples here of the State deciding it knows what's good for people and forcing them to 'do what's right' with catastrophic results. Also examples of 'the State' using people as guinea pigs without consent. There are a few pages to wade through, but perhaps you can speed read it and pick out the salient parts.
http://www.relfe.com/history_1.html
Looks like we're outta time. Good luck Simon! Hope it goes well.
OK... next day... how did it go Simon?