General

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

jdkdsgn — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:04:21 GMT

Her argument is just a bunch of generalities; it's the same way that "psychics" draw people from the crowd based on carefully generalized statements. For being a philosophy professor at Bowdoin, I'd expect a more detailed analysis. Maybe that's what she's done in her book, but if that's the case, why publish such fallible material?

Also, is it normal that there are no comments/no opportunity to comment on this article? I didn't see it.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

Autolykos — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:40:42 GMT

Her thesis is fatally flawed from the start, as it depends on value being objective.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

vive la insurrection — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:51:53 GMT

All I can do is try to show people there is a better way by living that way, not by pleading with the enemy.

that's roughly all I meant

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

Hairnet — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:46:45 GMT

I am not sure what you mean by insurrection, but I think I agree. People like that don't want to change their minds, and they don't care. However I think its important for those who can change their minds to know about alternatives to their control.

All I can do is try to show people there is a better way by living that way, not by pleading with the enemy.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

vive la insurrection — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:06:59 GMT

The way in which they express elitism and populism at the same time has always confounded me.

It's all tones, flavors, and moods and how to manipulate them,

And in the case of all or most political situations, you're on their paradigm: you can't out-argue, out-moralize, out-nihilize, out-sentimentalize, out-journalize, etc etc...this ought to be seen as self evident You can insurrect, but that's about it

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

vive la insurrection — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:54:38 GMT

I seldom read something so openly calling for restricting liberty

Have you ever been to Manhatten? It's the progressive-technocrat capital of the USA. From my 6 mo. experience living there "People" (to use a generous term) talk like this all the time.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

Hairnet — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 03:22:35 GMT

Agression undermines the victims ability to reason and waists the time of the agressor. Every act of agression undermines human cooperation. Paternalism just turns into stupid people being micromanaged by exhausted people (who also aren't producing anything).

Regulators are subject to every criticism that the average American is. If I am capable of irrational decision making, so is someone in power. Expanding potentially irrational people's ability to control the lives of others is not a good ideas.

I also love how a liberal is going to appeal to the irrationality of the populace in hopes that people will vote for proper leadership.. The way in which they express elitism and populism at the same time has always confounded me.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

Blargg — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:51:25 GMT

It’s because such a ban suggests that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and this has become, in contemporary American politics, highly controversial, no matter how trivial the particular issue.

If only we could stop these statists from doing the really foolish stuff. And I love the trivial comment. If it were so trivial, why did they go to all the trouble implementing it? Because either it's not trivial, or it's the first of further more serious encroachment.

Re: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

NonAntiAnarchist — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:37:11 GMT

The technocrat central planners are here, and they're ready to run our lives for our own betterment, whether we want them to, or not.

Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism

Gero — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:07:38 GMT

I read this op-ed today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html

One word response: wow. I seldom read something so openly calling for restricting liberty. I have heard of asking government to do this or that, and people can think that is find because they don't see government as coercive, but to outright oppose autonomy is a breath of fresh air: thank you, dear statist, for being honest. My favorite statist thus far is this psychologist.