However, it also seems apt to point out here that as far as things like helmet and seatbelt laws are concerned, there exists a middle path between coercive paternalism and complete unregulation, namely what Thaler and Sunstein call libertarian paternalism. For instance, one could have motorcycle helmet laws that allow riders to go without a helmet but only if they get a special license. To qualify for the license, a rider would have to take an extra driving course (and perhaps submit proof of health insurance). It would involve no extra tests, and getting this special license would not really be harder than getting the more regular license. However, due to the power of inertia in human behavior, and the tendency of individuals to go with the default, many people would opt to get the regular license. This system would enable people to ride without a helmet if they really want to but would also incorporate much of the safety gains of current laws.

(And I promise this is my last post on this topic today.)

Wearing a helmet reduces risk of damage. The cost of a helmet is moderate enough that most people, who can purchase a motorbike, can afford it. Besides, there are no problems with forcing people to wear helmets, except for the cost price and the price of "freedom". Why do you advocate that compulsory helmet laws be revoked?

Well, the answer, in brief, is John Stuart Mill's harm principle. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Of course, people disagree on what constitutes harm. Left-liberals often cite the indirect harm that certain business practices by large companies cause -- in their view -- to certain sections of the population. They use this reasoning to justify government regulation of corporations. Libertarians, on the other hand, take a much more restrictive meaning of the word 'harm.'

However one defines harm though, it is hard to make the case that not wearing helmets harms others. If you are really adamant, you might say that that the increase in critical injuries might have an effect on everyone's insurance rates. However, for one, the change will surely be negligible, and secondly, the obvious answer to this is to not subsidise health insurance with tax money. In any case, if helmet laws are repealed, insurance companies will probably charge higher premiums of those who decide to ride their bikes without an helmet.

Thus, mandatory helmet laws are not compatible with the harm principle. They are by no means the only such laws. There are other laws that seek to ban behaviors that harm no one else. Some of them --- such as Article 377 of the Indian Penal code that criminalizes homosexuality --- are much more insidious. However, anyone who is serious about defending individual freedom is obligated to speak out against all of these and not merely the ones that cause the most harm. For one, paternalistic laws such as those that mandate the wearing of helmets display a certain philosophy of governance that spill off into other issues. A government that does not respect personal autonomy in one sphere is unlikely to do so in another. As David Wiegel put it:

There's no such thing as trivial nanny-stating. There is legislation that affects personal behavior a lot and legislation that affects it only a little. But it's part of one continuum; the pol who believes he can enhance public health by limiting public choice believes he can fix many other problems by limiting that choice. One success follows another. The critics of one minor quality-of-life law wither away, and it's easy to imagine the next round of critics meeting the same date with obscurity.

Secondly, costs and benefits, as I never tire of pointing out, are different for different people. It is therefore not entirely logical to dismiss the burden on freedom as small in the helmet case.  If you advocate helmet laws, you can use the same argument to ban any activity for which, in your opinion, the joy derived is low enough when weighed against the possibility of extreme harm . An overzealous paternalist could also easily argue for a law against having  unprotected sex with strangers. I am sure there are people for whom the pleasure derived from the act of not wearing an helmet is at least as high as the pleasure certain others get from not having to bother about condoms during sex. Furthermore, the risk of contracting a serious venereal disease from unprotected sex --- at least if you are promiscuous enough -- is surely comparable to the risk of incurring a serious injury on account of not wearing a helmet.

Thus it makes little sense for those who oppose government intervention into sexual matters to support mandatory helmet laws. And to see this, you do not have to believe in the harm principle.

The number of fatal motorcycle accidents rose in 2007 for the 10th consecutive year, hitting 5,154, 7 percent higher than the 2006 total. [..] Although advocates of helmet laws will be inclined to blame their repeal in several states for the rising motorcycle fatalities, the chief culprit recently seems to be higher gas prices, which have encouraged people to take advantage of motorcycles' vastly superior fuel efficiency. [..]

Motorcycle riding is inherently dangerous. While wearing a helmet reduces the risk of certain injuries, research suggests the overall impact on fatalities is modest. The unimpressive numbers are one reason motorcyclists have been so successful at defending their right to decide what, if anything, to wear on their heads. "We are the only industrialized country in the world where there is an organized effort to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws," complains Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Is that a sign of backwardness or a point of pride? [emphasis mine]

How I feel about the last question will be obvious to regular readers of this blog.

I hope that most Americans feel similarly. Judging by the immense popularity of paternalists like Mike Bloomberg, I fear that is not the case.

Göran Skytte är förutsägbar, vilket i sig borde få en tidning som låter honom skriva krönikor att fundera på om han är lämplig för det uppdraget. Varannan krönika handlar om hur underbar den kristne guden är; varannan krönika handlar om hur hemskt det är att sociala normer inte bjuder människor att stigmatisera dem som inte lever som Göran tycker att man ska leva.

Idag angriper Göran journalistkåren:

Den som skulle förespråka till exempel sexuell avhållsamhet före äktenskapet och sexuell trohet inom äktenskapet löper risk att framställas som bigott och ”unken”. Medan det är ”chic” och ”kul” och ”nytt” och ”fräscht” att påstå att massgruppsex är en ny svensk trend.

Tre kommentarer:

1. Är det verkligen så att "massgruppsex" framställs som norm och trend i svenska media? Jag har sett mycket lite av den saken. Snarare tycker jag romantiska reportage om giftermål är  betydligt vanligare — t.ex. återfinns bröllopsfoton varje dag i de flesta tidningar. Och vem har skrivit att personer som lever i avhållsamhet är "bigotta" och "unkna"? Jag tror att Göran ser spöken.
2. Problemet är att Göran vill ersätta den norm han inbillar sig finns med en annan norm. Precis som katoliken Bitte vill han styra och ställa och, precis som han gör i sin artikel, nedvärdera dem som inte lever som han vill att man ska leva. Det är osmakligt. Det är inte så, vilket han vill få det till, att media och vi som förespråkar frihet att leva som man vill anser det osmakligt att de som vill leva i avhållsamhet och monogami gör det. Nej, det osmakliga består i att vilja upphöja detta sätt att leva till allmän norm.
3. Är inte Göran en cry baby? "Bu-hu, det är så hemskt att tidningar inte skriver det jag vill att de ska skriva." Ja, Göran, livet är hårt. Men torka tårarna och gå vidare nu, skulle vara mitt råd.

Och går han inte vidare frivilligt kanske han behöver en puff? Göran skriver:

Journalister fungerar som grindvakter. Vi bestämmer vilka och vad som ska släppas igenom ut till publiken – och vilka och vad som skall hållas tillbaka genom att man stänger grinden.

Just det. Var håller SvD:s grindvakt hus?

Se även vad Blogge Bloggelito har att säga om Göran.

Also read: Your health is my business. And please do not point out that what works for Olympic athletes will turn an average person into a hippo.

(Hat Tip: Reason Hit and Run)

The issue becomes controversial in the case of issues like health care. There are some in America who have decided to prioritize air conditioning, cable television, high speed internet access, or even all three, over health insurance. By enforcing a model of universal health care that provides it for everyone, our motives are paternalistic. Those who choose to put off the cost of health insurance may not even be making the "wrong" economic decision; many who do are simply young people who are unlikely to need health insurance. Overriding the decision of the individuals in the economy is the same thing as telling each person they are not intelligent enough to run their respective lives.

This is a bit more complicated than I imply; in reality, universal health care would not be simply paternalistic legislation, but paternalistic legislation plus a transfer payment. Part of its effect is to transfer resources from the rich to the poor, which may well be desired from one's viewpoint, but should be performed through an outlet optimized for that purpose (if anything, I would recommend this). If we want to force everyone to set aside a certain amount of resources for health insurance, we should say as much by requiring every adult to purchase health insurance. This would upset certain consumers who don't want to buy health insurance and feel that being forced to do so is an encroachment on their liberty. "Giving" people health insurance makes it sound like some sort of gift instead, even if those same people, when given a check by the government for an identical amount, would not have necessarily have spent it all on health insurance. The packaging of paternalism with a transfer payment makes it much more palatable, even if its supposed omniscience as to what people should spend their money on are identical.

A moderate position is to accept that we shouldn't force rational adults to buy health insurance, but that not every human is a rational adult. What about the insane? What about the mentally challenged? What about the children?

The Children

A tremendous dissonance has emerged over the past century of who decides what is best for children. Traditionally, children have, with few exceptions, been treated as the chattel of the parents. Unless the parent(s) severely harm or kill the child, seemingly anything was acceptable. These exceptions have gradually grown through shuffling steps, with the introduction of public education (a statement that parents won't spend enough on their child's education) and the flowering of children's rights groups (the belief that, for example, parentally inflicted corporal punishment [spanking] is wrong, even if it presents no true threat to the child). Such examples demarcate a different assumption; that children are ultimately the responsibility of society and the state.

A further outgrowth of this movement is the belief that the child shouldn't have to pay for the parent's decision to sacrifice health insurance for nonessentials. If this and this alone is the concern, the correct policy response is not for universal health care, but that the parent(s) must set aside money for each child's health insurance. Using the exception of children to insist on universal health care is akin to burning down a kitchen to boil a pot of water. Of course, this also ignores that the parent's supposedly improper choice of values may be in response to the possibility that the entire family is better off if it buys an air conditioner, a new stove, or gets internet access. By forcing health care for everyone, one neglects to consider the localized truth that air conditioning is important in Arizona and that little Jimmy is unlikely to get an infection in the dry heat anyways. Your mileage may vary; your view that the accessibility of emergency rooms for all may outweigh the value you place in a vague concept like local knowledge, but in either case the children are not a legitimate reason for universal health care.

This is nothing to say of the values of Christian Scientists and their ilk, and whether society really should force them to accept practices that they consider evil.

We must draw a line. Either children, with the rare exception of extreme abuse, are the "property" of the parents or society. If we want to say they are the responsibility of society and that the family unit only still exists out of expediency, that is a statement the population may understand and accept or reject, instead of the nebulous ambiguity that exists in public policy today. If they are the "property" of the family, the amount of legislation we have in place goes way too far.

The Mentally Ill

In The Death of Common Sense, author Philip K. Howard makes several arguments, of those including the public policy failures brought about by the introduction of positive rights. He conjecture that homelessness in America is caused almost solely by the legal ruling that the mentally ill should not be held in asylums against their will if they will not harm anyone.

The legal ruling is an archetype of the 1960s view of liberty, in the spirit of "who really is sane after all" relativist attitude found in One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, as Howard cites in his own book. Yet, society shouldn't then become surprised when the mentally ill aren't objective and rational enough to understand when they need medical care and how to procure it for themselves.

It is our choice as a society whether we want to believe mentally ill are rational in the ways that matter. We must choose between a very strong preference towards individual dignity of even the most objectively inept or to a certain degree of paternalism for those who need the fatherly care of the state.

I don't believe I can effectively choose between these alternatives. So long as the trade offs are made explicit to the voter (choosing between institutionalizing someone who is harmless against letting that person die of the common cold because they refuse to seek medical treatment), I am willing to accept whatever way citizens choose on the issue.

The Mentally Challenged

The case of the mentally challenged I empathized with all the more. I don't believe it is paternalistic at all for the state to take charge here, as there is nothing suggesting that the mentally challenged have the capacity to decide how to spend their resources. Although I exhibit a preference for keeping them under the control of a parent indefinitely or in the hands of a private organization, there still exists the possibility thats those options will not completely solve the problem. I remain suspicious of overriding the "selfish" decisions of those unwilling to sacrifice their values to provide for the specific case of the mentally disabled. However, these questions sit outside the question of paternalism. They are a legitimate exception.

----

If one accepts that adults are rational enough to decide what is best for them, the question shifts to which spheres of sovereignty one desires the exceptions to fall under. Individuals can then at least understand the what and the why the government interferes in one case and not the other. Consistency is a hallmark of justice. Society must choose whether children "belong" to the parents alone or to society as a whole. It must choose whether the state should coerce and control the actions of the harmless but mentally ill. It must figure out which legal structures (such as allowing volunteers to be come the legal guardians of the mentally mentally challenged) or further provisions are needed to assist the mentally challenged.

These exceptions do not give credence to ignoring the failure in general of paternalism. This is not limited to the primary example in this essay, that of health care. It remains true for issues like education and social security. As long as we can retain a preference for and expectation of rationality, it is meaningless to demand that all conform to the "need" for health care, retirement savings, or basic education. Society should deal with the exceptions to the subgroups who cannot be expected to be rational as what they are, exceptions.

Thaler och Sunsteins teori bortser också i hög utsträckning från att många av de “negativa” eller “oönskade” konsekvenserna av människors beteenden beror på lagar, regler och system som staten beslutat om och som människor anpassat sig till. ... Ett annat exempel är den så kallade zebralagen, som infördes 2000 och innebär att bilister bär hela ansvaret för att undvika olyckor vid oövervakade övergångsställen. Flera studier har sedan dess visat att antalet olyckor vid just sådana övergångställen har ökat sedan lagen infördes.

Detta är en viktig insikt och bör stämma lagstiftare, och de som efterfrågar lagstiftning, till eftertanke.  Professor Tabarrok förklarar lagen om oavsedda konsekvenser på följande vis:

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system.  The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.

Effekterna av den farliga övergångsställelagen har jag uppmärksammat tidigare. I sanning ett exempel på när välmenande utgångspunkter kan leda fel. Angående beteendeekonomi (den inriktning av nationalekonomin som påpekar att människor ibland beter sig irrationellt och som ibland dessutom förespråkar lagstiftning för att komma till rätta med detta), se tidigare inlägg här, här, här och här.

With paternalism, we refer to the attitudes of elitists who seek to impose their own preferred values on others. With parentalism, in contrast, we refer to the attitudes of persons who seek to have values imposed upon them by other persons, by the state or by transcendental forces. … And it seems evident that many persons do not want to shoulder the final responsibility for their own actions. Many persons are, indeed, afraid to be free.

Jag skulle säga att vi alla i olika grad är paternalister och parentalister. I ett demokratiskt samhälle kommer vi alltså bråka om hur mycket paternalism och parentalism vi ska ha. I Sverige har vi mycket av båda. Det innebär att det alltid kommer att finnas de som vill ha mer av detta och de som tycker att det redan är för mycket samt att detta kommer att skilja sig mellan samhällen.

Konfliken synes olöslig i det rådande systemet. Detta öppnar dock vägen för vad jag kallat Kosmopolitisk Partikularism*. Kosmopolitiskt då det transcenderar staten och Partikulärt då det innebär en organisering av människor utifrån individuella preferenser snarare än en gemensam universell mänsklighet.

Man skulle kunna likna det vid Robert Nozicks libertära utopi men utan statsgränser.

Överstaten har en minimala funktion hos en nattväktarstat medan sociala funktioner ingås i genom kontrakt mellan de olika paternalisterna och parentalisterna. Genom att välja ett sådant kontrakt som man själv tycker passar än kan fler göras nöjda. Paternalisterna får möjlighet att bestämma över dem som vill ha trygghet. Dessa klientrelationer överses av överstaten. I mångt och mycket kommer antagligen dessa klientrelationer överstämma med gamla stater och kulturer om det införs nu men att detta kommer utvecklas beroende på hur folk väljer att organisera sig.

Det finns så klart flera invändningar mot detta. Till att börja med måste alla paternalister överge (den långtgående) universalismen och erkänna att alla inte vill ha samma system. En annan viktig invändning är att människor tydligt måste erkänna vilken trygghet de vill ha och vad de är berädda att offra för detta.

Ytterligera ett problem är att tillräckligt många paternalister måste vilja betala för att parentalsisternas trygghet och inte minst måste de vara villiga att erkänna att de vill bestämma över människor.

Det stora problemet är antagligen att människor föredrar lögnen framför denna uttalade sanning. Och så kan man fråga sig om människor klarar av ett sådant system.

* Det finns ett minimalt universellt inslag i detta som alltså garanteras av den minimala staten.

La revista Reason publicó (What's the matter with Chicago... vol. 40 No.4 de Ago/Sept., 2008) un interesante artículo que les resumiré a continuación.  Les recomiendo darle una leída. La revista hizo un listado de las 35 ciudades estadounidenses que estaban más intervenidas por el estado benefactor y las que eran más libres. La evaluación calificó 8 aspectos principales:

• Regulación de la prostitución y clubes nocturnos XXX.  Además, de su apertura con la comunidad gay (gay-friendliness).
• Impuestos al tabaco y restricciones para fumadores.
• Impuestos en la venta de bebidas alcohólicas, regulación de horarios de venta de alcohol, publicidad y regulación del consumo de menores.
• Leyes que prohiben y restringen portar armas con licencias.
• Cámaras de control en las carreteras y avenidas, leyes sobre seguridad en automóviles y motocicletas, leyes sobre uso de teléfonos de celular y regulación estatal sobre automóviles.
• Libertad de consumo y penas por el uso de drogas prohibidas.
• Restricciones sobre el juego de azar, bingos y casinos; salones de poker, carreras de caballos y perros.
• Prohibición del consumo de grasa en alimentos, etiquetado de productos, restricciones en la industria de alimentos y otras leyes del estado benefactor.

Como resultado de esta evaluación la ciudad más protegida por legislación del estado benefactor es la ciudad de Chicago (puesto 35), Seattle (34), Nueva York (33), Boston (32), San Diego (30), Houston (28 ) y Los Angeles (27).  Tal parece, que las ciudades más grandes de Estados Unidos están siendo ahogadas por el gobierno y sus regulaciones. Solamente en esas ciudades listadas (7 ciudades) hay casi 20 millones de habitantes (tabla creada con datos de Wikipedia) y los mayores controles sobre los ciudadanos han sido aprobados por sus legislaturas.

¿En dónde estaban los ciudadanos preocupados por esto?  Seguramente estaban muy ocupados sobreviviendo y no se percataron de la intromisión del estado en sus sábanas.

Sin embargo, las 8 ciudades más libres de los Estados Unidos son Jacksonville (8), Portland (7), Milwaukee (6), Kansas City (5), _Louisville (4), Denver (3), Miami (2) y Las Vegas (puesto 1). Así que para aquellos que están pensando en mudarse, ya tienen algunas ideas de ciudades y estados a los cuales podrían planear viajar.  En estas ciudades hay muchos menos habitantes (3.7 millones):

Tal parece que los lugares ideales para mudarso son ciudades un poco más pequeñas que han permitido el desarrollo de sociedades menos reguladas y mucho más libres.  Las Vegas es la ciudad más libre en cuando a la prostitución y los juegos de azar con el puesto # 1.  Miami es la ciudad más libre en cuanto a la regulación para conducir automóviles y la menos regulada sobre leyes para el consumo de alimentos. Siempre me ha gustado la idea de vivir en Denver.  Las montañas están a la esper ade aquellos que disfrutan de esquiar durante el invierno.  ¡Uh, que rico es el olor a nieve y frío!

PS: siempre me ha parecido un gran error clasificar el sexo, la prostitución y el entretenimiento XXX con la homosexualidad.  La homosexualidad y cuan aceptada es por la legislación de una ciudad y/o cuan "friendly" sean sus habitantes no está relacionada para nada con el placer erótico.

I took a detour to the library after the lecture to print out my assignment and various receipts, then headed to the U of T shop to stock up on some pens just in case my remaining one runs out before (or, even worse, during) my exam, found a ridiculously bargainous 12-for-$1.95 set and treated myself to an academic diary for the next year. I stopped for a Subway's footlong meatmonster (otherwise known as Italian BMT) on the way back to my room, and consumed it luxuriously while watching more YouTube comedy. I was contemplating an afternoon walk when a deafening clap of thunder heralded a minor cloudburst outside, so I chose to stay put. This ultimately involved me sketching out in write-outable detail the 12th movement of the suite I'm currently composing, two-and-a-half minutes of lively 5/8 ostinati, and putting the first touches to the Sibelius version as well. I've put the movement I was hacking away at yesterday on hold for the time being, since it seems to have got me stuck in a bit of a rut. Now, however, it's time for supper, thence to YouTube again, then my beloved Star puzzles, and finally sleeeep.

One of the frustrations that I've faced in trying to understand Judge Willis has been to try to understand his mindset. Why did Port Phillip society of the time find him so unacceptable and demand his dismissal? Was he too radical? Was he too conservative? Was he neither of these things? This book focusses on early Victorian England which, although a hemisphere away from Port Phillip, was the milieu that informed the thinking of colonial judges and civil servants and was the lens through which their patrons and superiors back in the metropole viewed their actions.

In this book, Roberts attempts the heroic in trying to define and illustrate the workings of an unnamed-at-the-time set of varying beliefs and attitudes which he, along with other 20th historians, identifies as 'paternalism'. He argues that, bolstered by Romanticism and literature, paternalism reached its apogee in 1844. It's a slippery concept, though, despite his attempts to pin it down through analysis, for example, of the backgrounds of the contributors to the major 'paternal' journals and quarterlies of the day, or by the speeches and voting patterns of 'paternalist' MPs in the 1840s. He divided these parliamentarians into 6 categories: the Romantics, The Peelites, The Churchmen; the Country Squires; The Whigs and the Anglo-Irish, but even he admits that there is no consistency between their espoused position in speeches, and their actions. Paternalism, it seems, is only one of several influences. In fact, his concept is so hemmed in by qualifications and disclaimers that you start to wonder if what he is describing exists at all.

But, despite his difficulties in defining it, he posits that after 1848 'it' was no longer functional: rendered less relevant by the rise of urbanisation, a self-conscious middle and working class and the mid-century intellectual developments of science, rationalism, empiricism and belief in progress.

I'm not sure that this book has taken me much further in understanding Judge Willis. It's interesting that his major patrons are categorized as either Peelites or Whig paternalists- but I'm not really sure yet what, if anything, that means.

I found particularly stimulating Becker's critical take on whether it is appropriate to view obesity as imposing an externality on others. Here's an excerpt from Becker's post:

The so-called externality results from the fact that greater obesity raises taxes on others because the medical bills of the obese are partly paid by general taxpayers due to subsidized medical care. As Posner points out, this argument may be weak because obese adults die earlier than others and in this way obesity saves medical costs. However, even if true, I am uneasy about such externality arguments. Typical true externalities occur when actions by one individual or firm directly harm others, as when pollution by a company worsens the health of inhabitants, or when a drunk driver crashes into another car and injuries or kills the driver and passengers of that car.

But the alleged "externality" with regard to obesity is due only to the government's subsidy of medical expenditures, so that it is a case of one government intervention- justified or not- causing another intervention-control of eating. It is not a path of intervention causation that most people would be comfortable with in many situations. For example, since the government subsidizes the medical care of children of poorer parents, a mechanical application of this type of externality argument would say that this justifies governmental control over the number of children that poor parents can have. Additional children of these families create an "externality" by raising taxes on others to pay for the medical costs of these children. Many similar examples can be given where government regulations and other government programs cause certain types of behavior that raise taxes or subsidies and adversely affect taxpayers, even though there would be no externality from this behavior in the absence of the government programs.

In this particular surgery, this type of complication is fairly common.  The repairs usually work and lasting complications are rare.  A worst case scenario would be a fistual formation (an open channel between the bladder and the vagina or rectum) that allows urine to pour out regularly.  That's a bad deal but can also be repaired.

If it had been you under the knife...would you want to know about this? 

This surgeon will describe exactly what happened during his surgery to the patient when she wakes up, as is expected in our community.  But is this best?  Couldn't he just tell her things went fine and to let him know if there's a problem?  Would you really want to constantly worry that something may not be right?

Full-disclosure - especially about medical issues - is an American ideal that much of the rest of the world does not follow with nearly as much rigor.  In many other cultures, withholding certain medical facts is not meant to be paternalistic, but instead to simply provide compassionate, worry-free medical care.

I'd rather not know.  If I'm peeing out of my butt, I'll tell the doc.  Otherwise, I just want to believe that things went fine.

"While those interested in liberty should read those and other careful considerations of the theory behind Nudge, there is another fatal but overlooked flaw in the book's argument. They begin by assuming that people's current choices reflect the results when they are left alone to make them (i.e., reflecting self-ownership and voluntary market choices). That is why any shortcomings must be the fault of irrational individuals, who need paternalistic nudges to improve things. However, our current savings, organ-donation, and health choices are not those of free individuals; they are the choices made in large part because current government policies — taxes, regulations, mandates, etc. — impair incentives. They are government failures presented as market failures."

Read Galles' article

“Nobody on his deathbed ever said, ‘I wish I had spent more time at the office.’”

Studien sammanfattas på följande sätt:

"This article proposes that supposedly farsighted (hyperopic) choices of virtue over vice evoke increasing regret over time. We demonstrate that greater temporal separation between a choice and its assessment enhances the regret (or anticipated regret) of virtuous decisions (e.g., choosing work over pleasure). We argue that this finding reflects the differential impact of time on the affective determinants of self-control regrets. In particular, we show that greater temporal perspective attenuates emotions of indulgence guilt but accentuates wistful feelings of missing out on the pleasures of life. We examine alternative explanations, including action versus inaction regrets and levels of construal."

Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed prohibiting tobacco sales in pharmacies, including Walgreens and Rite Aid. The city's public health chief said the proposal is modeled after rules in eight provinces in Canada but has not been tried anywhere in the United States.

Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit areas where people can smoke.

Gone would be smoking in all businesses and bars, which now make an exception for owner-operated ones.

Gone too would be lighting up in taxicabs and rental cars, city-owned vehicles, farmers' markets, common areas of apartment buildings, tourist hotels, tobacco shops, charity bingo games, unenclosed dining areas, waiting areas such as lines at an ATM or movie theater, and anywhere within 20 feet of entrances to private, nonresidential buildings.

Mitch Katz, director of the Department of Public Health, said he strongly supports both measures - even if they are angering business owners who say it's one more example of San Francisco City Hall overstepping its bounds.

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

To paraphrase a comment at the Reason blog, whose responsibility is it then to protect people from tyranny?

Indeed, it's scary listening to these public-health fanatics. By their logic, speed limits should be lowered to 10 mph, burgers and cokes banned and motorcycles outlawed. Gambling and extreme sports ought to be banished from the face of the earth. And did I forget to mention unprotected sex?

Its a simple enough principle but some don't get it. Costs and benefits are different for different people. An act that one person views as self-destructive is completely worth the risk to another.

As Jacob Sullum eloquently put it:

Maximizing health is not the same as maximizing happiness. The public health mission to minimize morbidity and mortality leaves no room for the possibility that someone might accept a shorter life span, or an increased risk of disease or injury, in exchange for more pleasure or less discomfort. Motorcyclists, rock climbers, and sky divers make that sort of decision all the time, and not all of them are ignorant of the relevant injury and fatality statistics. With lifestyle choices that pose longer-term risks, such as smoking and overeating, the dangers may be easier to ignore, but it is still possible for someone with a certain set of tastes and preferences to say, “Let me enjoy myself now; I’ll take my chances.” The assumption that such tradeoffs are unacceptable is the unspoken moral premise of public health. When the surgeon general declares that “every American needs to eat healthy food in healthy portions and be physically active every day,” where does that leave a guy who prefers to be fat if it means he can eat what he likes and relax in his spare time instead of looking for ways to burn calories?

It’s true that, as the anti-smoking activist William Cahan pointed out on a CNN talk show several years ago, “People who are making decisions for themselves don’t always come up with the right answer.” They don’t necessarily make tradeoffs between health and other values in an informed or carefully considered manner. Sometimes they regret their decisions. But they know their own tastes and preferences, and they have access to myriad pieces of local information about the relevant costs and benefits that no government regulator can possibly know. They will not always make good decisions, but on balance they will make better decisions, as measured by their own subsequent evaluations, than any third party deciding for them. Leaving aside the question of who is better positioned to decide whether a given pleasure is worth the risk associated with it, there is an inherent value to freedom: When it comes to how people feel about their lives, they may well prefer to make their own bad choices rather than have better ones imposed on them.

Now the smoking ban of course goes beyond nanny-statism. It is also about protecting other people from the risks of second-hand smoke. That's a laudable intention and as a libertarian I have no quarrels with the underlying principle. But my point is this -- how does preventing the sale of cigarettes from certain shops or preventing their use in private bars designated for smoking serve this goal? People who enter such a bar or restaurant usually do with the intention to smoke -- those who do not can always choose not to enter.

And whats this about banning smoking in rental cars? Second-hand scent? WTF?

Ultimately, we must recognise these type of bans for what they are -- an act of those who are pompous enough to believe others' well-being is their business and deluded enough to think they are in a better position to make these value judgements than the individual involved. The result is a further expansion of government power in an era when the threat to civil liberties and personal freedom from such intrusions gets bigger every day.

And just so that no one ascribes imaginary motives -- I have never smoked, do not ever intend to and hate the smell of second-hand smoke as much as any regular guy. (I do however believe in respecting others' choices.)

(Hat-tip: Reason Hit and Run)

In this case, I'm proposing to think of Scylla as the proposition that You Are Responsible for Yourself. 

If you work hard enough, if you are focused enough, and of course, if you are not mollycoddled, if you have the fortitude and commitment necessary, you can make a success of yourself.  You can be whoever you want to be, and be as rich or successful as you want to be, or at the very least, be solvent, have a steady job and/or be self-supporting. This, I think we can agree, is the foundation of the American Dream.

Charybdis is the proposition that Your Are Responsible for Everyone Else. 

You have a responsibility to help, to serve, to support, to be kind, to be charitable,  and to lend a helping hand to those who cannot help themselves.   The proposition accepts that not everyone is fortunate enough to be born under a lucky star or with a silver spoon in their mouths, or is capable of meeting just the right people, or getting just the right upbringing, of being a member of just the right group, marrying the right girl or guy or assembling the rest of the ingredients and props of our favorite scenario. The proposition demands that, no matter how lucky YOU are, it's your duty to do whatever you can for others, even if you sacrifice something of yourself in this kind of service to humankind or to specific people.  This too, the model of the Good Samaritan, the example of the saints of the churches and of military heroes, of firemen and policemen, of teachers who teach in dangerous circumstances, of tireless volunteers, social workers, true public servants, philanthropists and great and generous social programs, some on an international scale,  is also the American Dream. 

The paradox is that, taken separately, they end up wreaking havoc - rife with distortions and ending in dysfunction. 

If you side only with Scylla, the result is Social Darwinism -  heartlessness, arrogance and the illusion that when people succeed, they have done it all by themselves.  You get a certain ruthlessness, that makes for people blithely saying, (when faced with the misery of thousands of people trapped in a feces soiled stadium after a hurrican) "well, they were poor anyway."  You can hear pronouncements, (in the face of people losing their jobs, their homes and unable to afford the transportation to get to a new one) like "what a bunch of whiners!"

If you side only with Charybdis, you may end up with a paternalistic and bureaucratic welfare system which unintentionally, and blindly,  punishes people who work,  or who try to keep their families together, which in general run the danger of leaving people not quite alive, and not quite dead - but stigmatized and unable to do much to pull themselve out of the swamp. 

The surprise ending is that the job is really not to get past these two mighty and dynamic rocks.  Odysseus had getting past them as a primary objective during his voyage home, but -- we should be so lucky!  In our case, whic is continuous task of buiding that most difficult but rewarding of systems - a sophisticated democracy,  the job is to keep on rockin' right in the middle of those roiling seas between both of them.  The health of our democracy depends on keeping that balance between them, and not even trying to decide which one is right, but accepting that neither one is wrong, or, rather, both are wrong, when held in isolation, as an ideological position.  This calls for maturity.  Only mature brains are capable of "holding" a paradox without being possessed by the need to resolve it, by deciding for one proposition or the other. They seem mutually contradictory, after all!  But the truth only shows up when they stay paired up.  

As long as we don't have a system that is capable of holding these two visions  together, that is - we don't have that maturity,  and we are constantly forced to make choices (as personified by our political parties) my personal choice is to err on the side of Charybdis.  If I'm going to be wrong, (and I am most certainly going to be wrong) I'd rather be wrong in that particular direction. But for me that also means remembering how easy it is to delude myself into thinking that the solution of all our problems will be to finally get rid of that very deeply annoying Scylla.

"Ämnet resveratrol, som finns i vindruvans skal, skyddar hjärta, kärl, ögon och ben mot att åldras. Det visar den hittills viktigaste studien på rött vin."

Det är välgörande att nykterhetspaternalister påminns om att deras årliga kostnadskalkyler över alkoholens samhällskostnader är ofullständiga. Först när intäktssidan, i form av hälso- och lyckoeffekter, tas med i kalkylen blir det trovärdigt att uttala sig normativt om alkohol. En kostnadsintäktsanalys som ignorerar intäktssidan ska inte tas på allvar.

Sometimes shit will happen in the process. Culosi-- poor guy -- his fate was an unfortunate one. But you know what, some collateral damage is unavoidable in matters like these. Don't worry about Culosi, he was a martyr to a great cause, he will surely go to heaven.

Barry, your point is that people must be forced to not think things that you don't like, and for that you'd have me put in jail. Your comment that it "seems" to you that viewing images "to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex" seems not a good enough reason to imprison me for 39 years. In fact, using a proper concept of morality based on individual rights, it is you and those who would put me in jail when I did not infringe on anyone's rights who are behaving immorally.

(Link via Reason Hit and Run)

Feedflix is a tool for Netflix subscribers to figure out how much each rental is costing you.

Impressive online choice architecture from Olay. If only the Medicare prescription drug web site was this user-friendly.

Mostly Economics thinks overconfidence is in our genes, and links to a funny paper (that is intended to be serious) for Excel users - overconfidence among spreadsheet creators.