Abstract
Paternalism and liberalism seem to be two very interlinked concepts in modern societies. It is true for both economical matters and social matters. For example, our Western 'liberal democracies' governments can provide huge amounts of money during the crisis to refund the banks– specifically, it is called interventionism- and they can also forbid prostitution and drugs. Thus in practice, liberalism and paternalism seem to co-exist. But in theory, the co-existence and compatibility of paternalism with liberalism is quite paradoxical.
John Rawls defined paternalism as the doctrine which justifies that it is morally legitimate for the State to act for people's well-being instead of themselves. This means that the State can legally and legitimately infringe on people's freedom; all liberalism thinkers– even if they all have different theories about liberalism, for instance Nozick and Kant- tried to demonstrate that this is not the best way to maximise people's well-being. Liberalism is the doctrine which places human liberty as the highest principle and value: people's freedom should be the only criterion and only justification of the actions of the State.
Extract
[...] Thus, the State should direct people to their own preferences, not in a coercive but very subtle and indirect way. The State should use these mental patterns and automatisms to make people acting for their own good. The two authors give the example of the fruits of the cafeteria: if the fruits are placed in front of the candy, people will globally consume more fruits than if they were behind the candy. Thus, the cafeteria managed to make people eat healthier without forcing them to do anything. [...]
[...] Thanks to the inertia of the initial situation, people will tend to keep this right; if they had not had automatically this right, they probably would have not asked to get it. Fighting against temporal inconsistencies and procrastination, for example by giving them the incentives to have long-term bank accounts. This kind of paternalism is mild and soft: it manages to interlink paternalism and liberalism because the State is not coercive towards the citizens. It only influences their choices for their own good but without people's consent. [...]
[...] But I will explain how they are even compatible and even necessary to each other. First at all, I think that paternalism - in a certain form - can bring liberalism to reality. As we have seen, liberalism is the theory which defends that, above all, people's liberty should be protected. So people's freedom of choice enter this category: people are free to decide what is good for them, because they know better than the State what is actually good. [...]
[...] Is liberalism compatible with paternalism? Paternalism and liberalism seem to be two very interlinked concepts in modern societies. It is true for both economical matters and social matters. For example, our Western "liberal democracies" governments can provide huge amounts of money during the crisis to refund the banks - specifically, it is called interventionism - and they can also forbid prostitution or drugs. Thus in practice, liberalism and paternalism seem to co-exist. But in theory, the co-existence and compatibility of paternalism with liberalism is more paradoxical. [...]
[...] It is what Nozick calls the slippery ropes of paternalism, against which citizens should protect themselves. Even if Sunstein and Thaler say that libertarian paternalism is "inevitable", people should remain careful towards State actions, in the extent that State, like people, could also have only a bounded rationality and make wrong choices. Political philosophers have developed concepts (such as Thoreau and his civil disobedience) to prevent this. To conclude, I do think that paternalism and liberalism are compatible and even necessary to each other. [...]
