Notes on Ball & Dagger reader
Donald Allen (2003, 2005)
"Paternalism vs. Democracy:  A Libertarian View"

Donald Allen (1944-)

Allen argues that once we start restricting liberty (negative liberty) for the sake of what people ought to want, i.e., for the sake of some higher goal (e.g., Green's positive liberty), then we wind up with a dictatorship of the fanatics and moralists — people who believe they know better than we do what we want (or, more accurately, what we should want).  To use his term, we wind up with the paternalistic state.  As we look at today's politics, we find examples of movements from both the right and the left to enforce certain morality — the religious right moving to ban pornography, rock music lyrics, and gay marriage, the moralistic left moving to ban racist language, cigarette advertising, and certain violent video games.  Given the similarity of their paternalistic justifications (knowing what is best for you), we have to ask whether "left" and "right" are meaningful distinctions here.  Aren't both of them, when you get right down to it, simply paternalists?  Moralistic leftists would say there is a meaningful distinction in that their desires are good while the religious rightists' desires are simply the imposition of a specific, narrow-minded, contingent morality.  Alas, the rightists would say the same thing about the leftists, and in truth it's hard to see the difference — or at least to see it clearly enough to warrant the extreme and dangerous measure of governmental interference with people's liberties.  So from that perspective, both the religious right and the moralistic left seem to be authoritarians, whatever the differences in their specific desires.

Allen's is a "slippery slope" (or "camel's nose") argument.  According to his logic, once we abandon the security of the top of the slope — once we start telling people what they ought to want and compelling them to act accordingly — then there's nothing to stop us from legislating more & more intrusively.  Everyone is tempted to start down the slope, because everyone is certain that their own preferences are justified.  But once one person does it, howsoever noble their motive, then there isn't anything to stop everyone else from trying to enforce their own moral preferences.  And since we have no certainty about what is good or bad, then we wind up, with the best of intentions, eliminating people's liberty.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

• Name some examples of authoritarian movements undertaken on behalf of what people ought to want.
• Here's an argument in support of Allen's point.  However, it contains a fallacy that is important to recognize and understand. See if you can figure out what the fallacy is:  "One example of Allen's argument is how the NHL is trying to force hockey players to wear helmets and face shields.  The NHL players have been playing for years and are the best in their sport.  Surely they should know, if anyone does, whether they want to use such equipment.  The NHL has no right to substitute its paternalistic judgment for theirs."  [I am indebted to P.H. for calling this and similar examples to my attention.]
• A slippery slope argument only holds if there are in fact only two opposed forces at work:  the force of gravity and the force of friction.  If the force pulling us downward is too great, then downward we will inevitably go, even if it is in fits and starts.  We might stick somewhere on the slope, but the next little disturbance of our stance will send us downward again.  Each part of the slope looks the same as every other part, and so we have no way to stop ourselves.  Thus the slippery slope argument falls apart if there is some other force at work, a force that gives us a way to evaluate each part of the slope.  Is there such a force?
• To help you think about the above question, think of the extremes of liberty, where we legalize prostitution, drug use, riding without seat belts, riding motorcycles without helmets, all pornography depicting activities among consenting adults (including rape fantasies), public nudity, spam, polygamy / polyandry, and so on.  (I'm trying to think of extreme examples;   you can think up your own as well.)  Are you really willing to accept the implications of the libertarian argument?  Do you want to give up pure food & drug laws?  taxes for welfare, education, and social security?
• Here's another potential line of argument against the slippery slope argument:  "'The best is the enemy of the good.'  It's clear that either extreme is bad;  the only question is where we should stop in the middle of the slope.  You are arguing that because it is impossible to draw an exact line, there can't be any line at all, but this isn't necessarily correct.  We can be imprecise and still be better off than being at one extreme or the other."  Is this rebuttal applicable to Allen's argument?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

OTHER, MISCELLANEOUS LECTURE NOTES

Two issues today:

• Content:  libertarianism;  paternalism
• Argument:  slippery slope / camel's nose

Note party caucus conflict between bikers and doctors over the helmet law.

Note that other paternalistic laws include a city curfew for under-age citizens and many, many actual laws:  requiring a driver's license, requiring people to be a certain age before they can vote or drink, etc.

We also need to ask, whom does this argument (and position) serve?  It didn't appear here by accident.  We'll discuss this further when we get to Marx.

On the other hand, arguments can't be simply dismissed.  ("The genetic fallacy";  "the psychological fallacy")

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003-5 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.