User:Raf akad/sandbox

= Paternalism In The State =

The concept of paternalism can be found in a variety of institutions such as schools and businesses. However, most paternalistic actions that bring forth controversy are those implemented by the government. There are different forms of paternalism which have different intentions. For example, a television commercial on the dangers of driving under the influence and a jail sentence are both forms of paternalism used by the state.

Free will is usually the main argument against most paternalistic actions against the public while a counter-argument to that is that these actions are meant as a safety precaution for the general public. Tools such as the concept of nudging and the theory of risk compensation have been used whether the intent is to further or prevent the agenda of paternalism.

When Is it morally ethical for the government or the state to intervene/interfere with the ability of the citizens to make their own decisions?

Soft Paternalism
Soft paternalism is libertarian, in the sense that it preserves freedom of choice. This could be in the form of a disclosure policy, a warning, and a default rule count. Soft paternalism does not impose material costs on people's choices. There is generally less objection towards soft paternalism in comparison to hard paternalism. Despite this, soft paternalism is known to have some concerns. These issues include transparency, being easily reversible, the legitimate claims of system one, and acting on impermissible factors.

Hard Paternalism
Hard Paternalism refers to actions of a government that attempt to improve people's own welfare by imposing material costs. An example would be a jail sentence and a fine that a civilian must pay. While Hard paternalism usually faces more objections due to the imposing material costs, it is intrinsically easier to control than soft paternalism. Hard Paternalism usually involves measurable items as well as rules usually being set up in advance. In this specific aspect, this makes it less subject to abuse than soft paternalism.

Arguments for Paternalism
The main difference between the use of paternalism by the government in comparison to other institutions is that the use of hard paternalism is more likely to be used by the government. John Stuart Mill explained that this power should only be used to prevent harm to others rather than the individual.

When acting paternalistic, the government may be attempting to do one of four things: affect outcomes without affecting people's actions or beliefs; affect actions without influencing their beliefs; affect people's beliefs in order to influence their actions; or affect people's preferences, independently or affecting their beliefs in order to influence their actions. The reasoning that some government bodies give for their policies that may fall under paternalistic is that some of them are implemented to protect outcomes that individuals cannot control. What individuals define as free-will can vary among human beings and their morals.

Nudging
Over 60 government departments and international agencies have established “nudge units” tasked with finding and pulling the right behavioral levers to accomplish everything from increasing retirement savings to boosting diversity in military recruits to encouraging people to get vaccinated against flu.

Nudges can be quite useful when utilized for the right purpose. An example of generally approved nudges includes automatic voter registration and automatic enrollment in pension plans and green energy since citizens think that those nudges are in most people’s interest. In contrast, officials adopting a default rule by which citizens automatically give their money to a good charity is more likely to be rejected because of the idea that people will want to use their money on a charity of their conscious choice.

Risk compensation
We all change our behavior in response to changes in our environment. Many rational and behavioral factors influence whether and how our behavior will change. Injury prevention measures can have effects beyond the individual actions that they influence directly. Risk compensation theorizes that government regulations that intend to promote safety can influence our behavior in a variety of different ways.

Sam Peltzman
In 1968, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued 29 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applying to new motor vehicles. Only a few intended to prevent crashes by setting standards for brakes, tires, and mirrors. Most of the safety standards required seat belts, shatterproof windshields, and energy-absorbing steering columns. When evaluating whether or not the FMVSS improved safety as anticipated, Sam Peltzman concluded that the standards were ineffective since drivers would drive more recklessly knowing that their vehicle was designed with more safety features. They may have saved some auto occupants’ lives while increasing pedestrian deaths.

Gerald J.S. Wilde
Gerald J.S. Wilde took a psychological approach to risk compensation by viewing risk as a necessity and said that we all have a target level of risk. If the perceived risk of a situation exceeds its target level, individuals will act to reduce it while if the perceived risk is lower than their target level, individuals will attempt to increase their risk back to their target level through more dangerous actions. This was called risk homeostasis and was used mainly for road safety, but later extended to other factors such as industrial safety, sports, smoking, and more. Risk homeostasis challenges the foundations of an injury prevention strategy. It holds that the only effective safety measures are those that alter my desired risk level.

Arguments Against Paternalism
The main argument that surrounds the debate of paternalistic actions that the government implements is an individual being unable to act on their own free will. Although many paternalistic actions work towards keeping a majority of people safe, some actions prevent people from making decisions that they are capable of making on their own. The government can be responsible for controlling the consumption of goods wouldn't be seen as a threat to others, but only as a threat to the one consuming them.

When you implement government policies there might be unintended consequences. New York Mayor at the time, Michael Bloomberg, passed a portion cap rule which banned 16-ounce sodas. His intentions were to lower obesity in the city but ended up affecting small businesses and lower-earning income families. Other concerns of Paternalism include creating ‘moral hazard', interfering with religion, social interest groups having control over the policies being implemented, and no guarantee that paternalistic actions will improve people's welfare.

Controversy
Paternalistic actions that were approved by governments at the times have been recognized as some of the most immoral actions in history. These past and current examples of regulations put in place by the government to control one's free will is one of many reasons why individuals do not approve of the government acting paternalistic.

Slavery
For as long as slavery was legal, paternalism was used to justify it. Women were presented as mother figures or protectors that provided benefits that the slaves would not get on their own while attempting to justify that the conditions for freed blacks were poorer than those who were under the mistresses' protection. We can see the controversy of paternalism by this example through the justification made by the paternalists for slavery because they claimed slaveholders believed it was right to hold slaves.

Race and Gender Segregation
Racial segregation and Sex segregation is still prevalent in our society today and can be seen in many different forms. Paternalism in this sense is used to maintain power and show the differences in a position that people have in the community. It is proven that in many ways Americans still live racially divided and have unequal lives. Paternalism can be used to create and maintain this segregation, and can potentially create racial segregation through federal and state policies.

The 'social construction of gender' implies activities like sports are gender-differentiated. This idea is to produce as well as maintain the differences in the lives of the men and women. University of Canterbury's Roslyn Kerr suggests this separation of gender patterns is implicated to create the structures of power that are different for both men and women.

Women's Rights
Women's Rights are human rights that were first imposed by the United Nations. There was a list of rights that was enshrined; the right to live as a free person from violence, free from slavery, free from discrimination, free to be educated, free to own property, free to vote, and finally free to earn a fair and equal wage. In the Middle East, women are trapped under male guardianship as the law requires. In Saudi Arabia, the government has a male guardianship system in place where a man would control a woman's life from the day she was born until the day she died.

Drugs
According to Douglas N. Husak, drug laws are the most frequently enforced criminal statutes in America. It is also estimated that 1 in every 4 arrests that are made in America is directly related to the use of drugs. Government bodies have restricted the use of drugs even if the offence was minor. Marijuana, for example, might be legal in many places while other jurisdictions restrict it and control the consumption of it through their laws and regulation.

Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is the marriage of two people of the same sex or gender, entered into a civil or religious ceremony. Some American states still do not allow same-sex couples to marry. The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics turned down the request for reconsideration by voters to create a new law allowing same-sex marriage. The main reason behind the past and present prevention of citizens being able to marry someone of the same sex revolves around belief and religion. Many people view this action as a breach of their freedom to choose who they want to be with.

Euthanasia
Government bodies have intervened with Euthanasia by preventing a person from assisting in ending the pain and misery of another person. People in pain are sometimes not given the free will to make their own decisions to take their own lives and end constant pain and suffering that they might endure on a daily basis. The idea is that keeping an individual alive would work in their best interest as well as those that are close to them. However, this could only make the person suffer for a longer period of time before their natural death occurs.