An Argument Against Paternalism

Recently Public Health England has celebrated, what it regards, as the overwhelming success of the newly introduced “Sugar Tax”. Since 2017 the amount of sugar in fizzy and sweetened drinks has been reduced by 29%. This is an un-doubtable victory for the paternalists and for the principles which they uphold. It is now up to the liberals of all parties to oppose such principles, and to do so at their intellectual root. For once the principles of paternalism are accepted there is no stopping their inexorable logical conclusion, which is the total abolition of all freedom.

At the very root of the paternalist ideology is the Platonic ideal, the idea that all should drive towards a perfect body shape and an objectively good lifestyle in order to live the longest life possible. For PHE this ideal would be represented by one who ate no more than 2,500 calories a day, exercised 3 hours a week, consumed in excess of five fruits and vegetables a day, and never drank or smoked. This is the puritanical lifestyle which PHE recommends, as seen in public advertising campaigns such as Change4Life and Dry January. Ultimately, all of this in the name of helping man live longer, irrespective of whether the individual actually agrees with such a goal. 

However, this Platonic ideal is no longer just a recommendation; it is now the justification for the use of force in eroding freedom, indeed it always has been. Non- existent net negative externalities are simply a false excuse for intervention when the true extremism of their ideas are exposed. Once force is accepted as being a legitimate tool to achieve the above ideal then all liberty is lost. If property rights can be violated through excessive regulation and coercive taxation, then how is prohibition any different?  Sin taxes are simply the thin end of the wedge. 

Smoking is the clearest example of how far the wedge can driven,  and how liberty in sale and purchase can be near abolished. In 1965 tobacco advertising was banned on TV, in cinemas in 1984, and in 2002 virtually all other advertising was also banned, in 2007 the smoking ban was introduced, and in 2017 plain packing was rolled out. Every step of the way the paternalists insisted that the wedge would be driven no further and that freedom would be preserved. Labour’s 2005 Manifesto even went as far as to say drinkers’ bars and private members clubs would be exempted from the smoking ban, a promised that was broken only a few years later.

And just as the tobacco lobby warned the population that alcohol and food would come next, so they have been proven right. Consider the fact that PHE now wants to expand the “Sugar Tax” to include milkshakes or Jamie Oliver’s idea to ban “junk food” advertising before 9pm. Indeed, banning “junk food” advertising has already been rolled out on the Underground. This total assault on commercial free speech involves banning an unbelievable array of products, from olive oil to cheese to honey and Marmite, an absurdity.

Most sinister of all though are PHE’s plans to introduce calorie caps on all food, from 134 calories for an onion bhaji to 550 calories for a restaurant salad. Property rights clearly mean nothing to paternalists. The ultimate aim for them is total control over the food supply, nationalisation of the industry by the back door. In fact PHE must logically accept total control over every aspect of an individual’s life, in order to further its elongation. It must prohibit tobacco, alcohol and excessive sugar.  It must prescribe the types of meals people eat and the exercise they do, and force them to do it if necessary. Freedom must be abolished, totalitarian paternalism must be implemented.  

The most extreme conclusions of the paternalist doctrine cannot be denied without denying their very foundations. It is simply not acceptable to suggest that alcohol or sugary drinks should not be banned on the grounds of freedom, and still maintain support for the “Sugar Tax” on paternalist foundations. The moment freedom is used as a defence is the moment the whole paternalist edifice must collapse, for the implication is that people should be able to steer away from the Platonic ideal or indeed reject it in principle. However, once this is conceded on what grounds are there to support the “Sugar Tax” or alcohol duty. It cannot be it discourages obesity or drunkenness (and therefore leads to longer life) since such a justification would inevitably lead to the conclusion that a ban would be most effective.  

Paternalism by its very nature rules out a plurality of lifestyles, it is only liberalism that allows for the freedom to consume and produce whatever one wishes. By respecting property rights, and the freedom they create, liberalism allows different individuals to pursue different ends according to different values. While some will prefer no smoking or drinking and a longer life others may value a shorter life  with smoking and drinking.  As Immanuel Kant suggests, every individual should be treated as an end in himself. From this the protection of an individual’s freedom can be drawn, because only by being able to make choices unfettered by violence that a man can act to purse his own ends. 

Written by Charles Amos