The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice

Parliament house flag post

The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice

Posted 16/06/2011 by Luke Buckmaster

Nurse and Child, c.1896/97 Artist: Mary Stevenson Cassatt
In recent times, a number of Australian Government policy initiatives have been criticised as ‘nanny state’ or ‘paternalist’ policies.

Describing policies in this way resonates with concerns held by many that there should be limits to the extent to which governments should protect people from the consequences of their choices.

But are there circumstances in which some help from ‘nanny’ can be justified?


This week the tobacco industry launched a nation-wide media campaign in an attempt to stop the Government introducing plain packaging for all tobacco products sold in Australia. The industry has based its campaign around the idea that the policy is a ‘nanny state’ measure. The campaign has been based around the argument that by requiring the removal of tobacco-industry branding and trademarks, the Government is effectively treating Australians as though they were children, incapable of making their own decisions about whether or not to smoke.

Similar arguments have been made with regard to the Government’s plan to introduce a mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines. Senator Cory Bernardi, for example, has dubbed the plan ‘nanny state nonsense’, criticising it on the grounds that it treats all Australians as though they were unable to control their gambling impulses. Senator Bernardi goes on to emphasise that policies that involve individuals devolving their personal responsibility to the state should be ‘resisted at almost any cost’.

However, despite this type of criticism, very few people argue that the state has no role to play in restricting the choices of individual citizens in certain areas for their own good.

Arguably, the central issue is not so much whether paternalism is legitimate, but rather when it is legitimate. For example, often people who criticise paternalism in one area (say, welfare reform) may be supportive of it in another area (say, tobacco control).

What then should be the parameters of the nanny state? When is paternalism justified and when does it cross the line?

We considered these issues in a recent Parliamentary Library Research Paper on paternalism in social policy.

The starting position of the paper was that, in liberal-democratic societies, there continues to be a strong presumption against paternalist policies based on the principle that individuals are the best judge of their own interests. People are committed to the idea that they have a right to make choices for themselves.

Critics of paternalism also argue that it is ultimately counterproductive because it leads to dependence on governments and diminishes self-reliance. Critics also point to instances of paternalism ‘gone wrong’—where the state has intervened with the best of intentions but sometimes with significant negative unintended consequences (see James Scott’s Seeing like a state, for example).

Nevertheless, as public policy academic Bills New has suggested*, while it is difficult for many people in liberal societies to accept paternalism in principle, it is ‘equally difficult to avoid in practice’. All but the most dogmatic adherents to libertarian or choice theories recognise the inevitability, and in some cases, the potential benefits of paternalist interventions on the part of the state.

This leads to a dilemma: how can governments meet their obligations to ensure the welfare of citizens without interfering in people’s choices?

Political philosopher, Robert Goodin’s **way through this dilemma is to say that paternalism can be justified if it is consistent with a person’s own deeper values, objectives or choices. According to this approach, paternalism can be about helping people to address failures (for example, failures of reasoning or weakness of will) that prevent them from acting in their own best interests.

Goodin identifies various conditions under which he considers that paternalism can be justified. First, he says that the state should only intervene in instances where (a) high-stakes decisions are involved and/or (b) where decisions are more or less irreversible. Goodin cites, as an example, the decision to begin taking addictive drugs.

Second, Goodin says that several requirements must be met if people’s choices are not to be respected, and state interference considered justifiable. As Goodin sees it, paternalism is only justifiable in instances where public officials better respect a person’s own preferences than the person might have done through his or her own actions or choices. This means that public officials should not interfere with people’s choices if they are convinced that people are acting in accordance with their actual preferences.

For example, Goodin makes a distinction between ‘surface’ preferences and ‘deeper’ or ‘relevant’ preferences’. He argues that where people make factual mistakes in their reasoning (they may, of course, be led to do so by advertisers), and their surface preferences (to smoke or gamble despite their limited income) undermine their own deeper preferences (to stay alive, not be ill or in poverty), then it may be justifiable to override their surface preferences in favour of their deeper or relevant preferences.

As another example, Goodin suggests that people have ‘preferred preferences’—preferences that, despite their making different, contradictory or opposing choices, they would actually rather prioritise. For example, a smoker may want to quit smoking but experiences great difficulty in doing so (many smokers are in precisely this position). Where public policies help people to realise their preferred preferences (through, for example, making it more expensive or inconvenient for people to smoke), then such policies cannot be said to be paternalistic in a morally unjustifiable sense. As Goodin observes, ‘in helping them to implement their own preferred preferences, we are only respecting people’s own priorities’.

In instances such as these where some of a person’s preferences clearly deserve precedence over others, there may be a case for paternalism. Paternalism may or may not be justifiable against such criteria and it remains a matter for debate whether or not a given intervention is justified merely by satisfying such criteria. However, the point is that it is not enough to argue against a given intervention simply on the grounds that it is a nanny state measure or paternalistic.

Nanny state arguments highlight the concerns of many in liberal-democratic societies that states should not place undue restraints on individual freedoms. However, Goodin’s approach illustrates that the formation of choices can be a far more complex act than is generally supposed and that there may be instances in which nanny’s interference can be warranted in terms of helping a person to achieve that which they truly value.

Co-authored with Matthew Thomas.

*B New, ‘Paternalism and public policy’, Economics and Philosophy, 15, 1999, p. 65.

**R Goodin, ‘In defence of the Nanny State’, in A Etzioni, ed., Rights and the Common Good: communitarian perspectives, St Martin’s Press, New York, 1995.

(Image: Mary Cassat, Nurse and Child 1896-97)

Comments

  • 21/01/2014 3:46 PM
    Ben said:

    I think paternalism needs to be looked at more from the point of view of its positive vs negative effect on liberty. For example, I don't see it as overly paternalistic for the government to provide welfare to those who need it and choose to ask for it. In many ways, welfare increases liberty because it allows people to 'get back on their feet'. Banning drug use/alcohol/tobacco reduces liberty for no valid reason, other than the rather shady view that the government knows more about what someone really prefers than the individual does. Yes, revealed preferences are complex and aren't always completely logical. But I see no justification at all for someone stopping me from making my own, internally inconsistent, decisions.

  • 21/01/2014 3:46 PM
    Luke Buckmaster said:

    Thanks for your comments, Ben. Just to clarify, the post doesn’t advocate banning drug use, alcohol or tobacco or over-riding people’s preferences (even where they are inconsistent). We just make the point that it is not enough to say that ‘nanny state’ policies are always wrong, simply because they interfere with people’s preferences. People can have competing preferences (surface versus deep, short-term versus long-term etc) and this gives governments some scope to develop policies aimed at helping people to make choices that best align with their professed values and interests. Smoking provides a useful example of this. In the longer version of the paper we highlight evidence that almost 90 per cent of Australian smokers report that they wish they had never taken up the habit (See G Fong, D Hammond, F Laux, M Zanna, K Cummings, R Borland and H Ross, ‘The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey’, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6: supplement 3, 2004, p. S345). I should also point out that the longer version of the paper goes on to discuss the issue of precisely what forms of paternalism might be considered justifiable—we regard this is a critical issue in evaluating the appropriateness and justifiability of a given instance of paternalism.

  • 21/01/2014 3:47 PM
    Denley said:

    What if the government instead implemented an action that allowed smokers to opt-in to intervention in their decisions to buy cigarettes? This might allow people to still make/measure/control their own decisions whilst allowing addicted people to make long-term decisions of their own preferences. Since people seem to have no trouble admitting a different preference in a survey (in Fong et al. 2004), they may also welcome the opportunity to request for help from their peers. Do you have any thoughts on whether a system like this may be effective at pleasing both sides of the argument?

  • 21/01/2014 3:47 PM
    Anonymous said:

    Does the government have a role in restricting individual freedoms where exercising those freedoms means that the public is required to pay for any negative effects that are incurred as a consequence? Thus, under our current health system, tobacco smokers place considerable demands on the public purse - notwithstanding the taxation returns imposed upon them. Or does this mean that government should just declare cigarettes illegal on this basis?


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment Sport illicit drugs people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget health financing gambling school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA emissions trading Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations people smuggling dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission slavery Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure poker machines ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth paid parental leave Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy violence against women domestic violence mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing money laundering Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights citizenship Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals

Show all
Show less
Back to top