Apparently worried that we don't have enough to worry about, the editors of the Economist, the British newspaper that looks like a magazine, put on their April 8 cover an ominous, giant eyeball, under the headline "The state is looking after you."
The subject of the issue's lead editorial and a three-page special report is the threat to individual freedom the editors discern in a new movement gaining support among some politicians and academics on both sides of the Atlantic.
They call it "soft paternalism." Its practitioners "are paternalists, because they want to help you make the choices you would make for yourself -- if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aim only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice."
An example of soft paternalism can be found in Missouri. According to the Economist, the state has passed a statute barring some residents from setting foot in any of the 11 riverboat casinos it has licensed. Those who are caught violating the law can be arrested for trespassing and see their winnings confiscated by the cops.
That sounds pretty harsh, but the ban applies only to those who have voluntarily placed their own names on the list, in order to break their addiction to gambling. The magazine says that about 10,000 gamblers have taken that step in Missouri, seeking help for a problem in their lives.
What could possibly be the follow-up to that law? Obese people getting the Twinkie™ rider added to the bill? Will we paying law enofrcement to patrol 7-11s armed with mugshots of those who give in to the overwhelming temptation of snack food?
That has always been my problem with liberalism, their willingness to give the shirt off of everyone else's backs to meet whatever need they deem appropriate. Due to 'soft paternalism' police resources, both manpower and funding, are taken away from protecting people and enforcing laws. Our tax dollars are spent on taking care of people who won't take care of themselves rather than can't take care of themselves. Liberals justify things like this by making everyone a victim and giving them an easy out for personal responsibility. They are right on the first part, everyone is a victim under their system but we're victims of their system. We shouldn't be.
If it was true that liberals were smarter than conservatives they wouldn't need a nanny state. Judging from the amount of effort they put into forcing one on us they obviously need a nanny state. They aren't being generous here, they are looking out for themselves the best way they know how. By handing the responsibility off to the rest of us. They aren't smarter than conservatives, they've just morphed themselves into being the best parasites our money can buy. We're the generous ones. We're picking up the tab.
Cross-posted from the Bullwinkle Blog.