Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, March 25. 2013

Three Cheers for the Nanny State?


The author of the NYT op-ed piece is Sarah Conly, an assistant professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, the author of “Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism.”


I suppose my question to Prof. Conly would be to ask her how she might feel if I were in charge of the coercive paternalism. After all, I am sure I have more real life experience, a better understanding of human nature, more university degrees, and probably more expertise in various areas than she does.


The Liberal Fascists tend to assume that the paternalists would always see the world their way. What if the coercive paternalists were to view the world my way? Then what? Would the Sarah Conlys view it as perhaps oppressive?


I do not just object to the disparagement of the sense of "regular" people, or to the indifference to the freedom that is supposed to be the American heritage - I object to the incredible arrogance which verges on the insane.


Sarah, apply your coercive paternalism to your kids. That's where that instinct belongs. However, I would not be surprised if you send them to a Montessori school.


Image below via Never Yet Melted.



I see Rick Moran covers some of the same ground.


Posted by Bird Dog in Our Essays, Politics at 19:09 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I'm all in favor of banning. As long as it applies only to asinine op-ed pieces. With me being the judge of what's asinine.
#1 BillH on 2013-03-25 20:41 (Reply)
"For example, we suffer from an optimism bias, that is we tend to think that however likely a bad thing is to happen to most people in our situation, it’s less likely to happen to us — not for any particular reason, but because we’re irrationally optimistic."

Ms. Conly mostly seems to suffer from a profound lack of irony and self awareness.
#2 B Moe on 2013-03-25 22:15 (Reply)
In older days, we'd have said the esteemed writer was 'mind f***ed and out of her element', but we have progressed, for all the rot it has hoisted upon us.
#2.1 fred zeppelin on 2013-03-26 10:02 (Reply)
For fun:Environmental Graffiti. From Russia.

As a MF contributor pointed out, the good professor likes it when SHE is the one telling others what they may or may not do. Would she like it when someone else is telling her what to do?
#3 Gringo on 2013-03-25 23:53 (Reply)
It is amazing how seldom those of the paternalistic bent choose not to view the issue from the other side. The question Prof. Conly should ask, is would she be so amenable to being told what to do if Dick Cheney was making the rules?
#4 JKB on 2013-03-26 00:03 (Reply)
"Can I choose to honor my country?"
"No, that would be imperialistic."
"Can I choose to uphold traditional marriage?"
"No, that would be homophobic."
"Can I choose what my child gets taught in the public school that I pay for with my tax dollars?"
"No, because you're not qualified to determine what's best for your child."
"Can I choose to criticize the President?"
"No, because that would be racist."
#5 John on 2013-03-26 07:43 (Reply)
Regarding the toon, each panel is a silly non-sequitur, save perhaps the New York soda ban, which was overturned.
#6 Hugh Jass on 2013-03-26 08:16 (Reply)
Heh!! Hmm. Well it's being a bit silly to make a point. But the mindset of people who generally claim to be liberal champions of autonomy - at least in a few areas - but advocate multiplying controls and restrictions of choice in diverse areas of people's lives - that's silly, too. After you get past hypocritical, irksome, noxious, and tyrannical, it's pretty silly.
#6.1 T.K. Tortch on 2013-03-26 09:38 (Reply)
The first draft of the opinion was much clearer on how the author felt about people's relation to the government.
#7 DigDeepr (Link) on 2013-03-26 08:40 (Reply)
As an aside I read her faculty page at Bowdoin (a great school!). It's hilarious. In describing the premise of her next book (in which she will argue for state control of birth rights) she says,

"the right to have a family is one we often think of as sacrosanct, articulated, among other places, in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights".

Why do I find this so funny? You'll notice biology never enters her thinking, in which a primary purpose of life is procreation. Nor does the entire scope of human history, in which multiple offspring are an economic necessity, also never enter her thinkng. The legalistic left, some of whom I am so sadly related to, loves to look for legal precedent and, so, where does she go first in articulating her short-form pitch? Why, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Well, goddam.

The UN has got to go,if for no other reason than to deprive the fascist naifs of a precedent!
#8 MTF on 2013-03-26 08:45 (Reply)
You must forgive her. To look beyond the institutions is to face the origins of our beliefs and rights. To peer into the face of God as it were. For even if you discount religion, the fact that belief in a higher deity is what guided the development of humans and our institutions cannot be avoided.

And that she cannot abide.
#8.1 JKB on 2013-03-26 09:48 (Reply)
I think it's time we banned all academics. Only 1 in a thousand seem to have any brains at all; the rest just screw up society by tinkering, meddling and pontificating while making careers out of propaganda that simply assures them of a paycheck with little benefit to those that put out the bucks.
#9 jma on 2013-03-26 09:48 (Reply)
Oh, why start there? The list could include politicians (who don't really know what they are doing, what they speak on, or anything but reaping more power unto themselves), Hollyweird types (Matt Damon an International Diplomatic expert? Really?), and a whole lot more hand-wringers and 'I know better than you for you' types..
#9.1 fred zeppelin on 2013-03-26 10:42 (Reply)
to paraphrase: When I heard about the evils of Listening to Liberals, I quit listening to liberals. or When wrestling with liberals, expect to get dirty.
#9.1.1 blick on 2013-03-26 12:04 (Reply)
OK, fred and blick. I'm game, but only if you add lawyers. I swear that 90% of the spikes in social security disability payments and suits against doctors, hospitals and mesh sling manufacturers is due to law firms advertising on late night TV.
#9.1.1.1 jma on 2013-03-26 12:48 (Reply)
The destruction of America started when liberals took over academia. Liberalism is inherently authoritarian, and we permit these people to control our children's minds. Forget private schools, they're even worse. I can support religious schools or homeschooling.

I watched liberalism destroy my children's values.

Academia is a very very dangerous place, in which one is only allowed to think ONE WAY.
#10 Park Slope Pubby on 2013-03-26 12:24 (Reply)
"What this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis:"

On what planet is this system in place? Such laws are done on the basis of who makes the most successful emotionally laden appeal that makes politicians fear that low-information voters will throw them out of office if they don't vote for it.

"if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law."

If it's too painful for the people creating the law - or their friends - then it's not a good law. The pain that you and I may suffer thereby is of no account.

"Making these analyses is something the government has the resources to do,"

Hah!

"just as now it sets automobile construction standards while considering both the need for affordability and the desire for safety."

Building standards can stand up to quantitative analysis. "Too much soda in the cup" does not.

"In the old days we used to blame people for acting imprudently, and say that since their bad choices were their own fault, they deserved to suffer the consequences."

We still do. But you've decided that bullshit like the following is superior to actual morals and common sense:

"Now we see that these errors aren’t a function of bad character, but of our shared cognitive inheritance."

WTF does "shared cognitive inheritance" mean? In real life, mind you, not in the faculty lounge.

"The proper reaction is not blame,"

Says who?

"but an impulse to help one another."

I'm all for helping each other. I am not for ordering people about.

"That’s what the government is supposed to do, help us get where we want to go."

No. No, no, no, no, NO! What the government is supposed to do - as anyone who can read at a 5th grade level can tell if they read the Declaration of Independence - is to preserve our liberties - which includes the liberty to get too fat by eating junk food and dying at an early age, if we so choose. The proper role of the government is not to restrict our liberties because someone in elected office figures that we don't know what's good for us, so we deserve someone else to give it to us good and hard.
#11 RonF on 2013-03-26 14:12 (Reply)
I agree: Professor Sarah Conly is not acting in her own best interest by advocating "Coercive Paternalism". If the majority gets to impose it's will on the majority (for their own good, of course), then we need to teach her about the value of Constitutional limits on government, the value of individual liberty, and how oppressive a government can be. Maybe next time she'll make better choices before she opens her mouth to advocate "Coercive Paternalism".

20 years hard labor in the People's Re-Education Camp should do it.
#12 kevino on 2013-03-26 19:07 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.