Is State Paternalism Justified in a Liberal Democracy?

State Paternalism, defined as ‘the theory or principle that recognizes the need to prevent self-inflicted harm as a legitimizing reason for coercive legislation’, posits the interference of the state in lieu of the, at times unforeseen, greater good of the subject.Paternalistic policies are often regarded as antithetical to the rudimentary principles of a liberal society for they are believed to infringe upon the autonomy of an subject to seek his or her own good, in a society which rests on the principles of individualism.

This essay, however, will argue that state paternalism policies can be justified in a liberal democracy under two distinct circumstances:

(i) Where autonomy is presumed to exist and paternalistic policies protect it.

(iii) Where a subject may desire to but is unable to retract his initial choice.

In a democracy standing on the principles of neutralist liberalism, autonomy is presumed to exist. This means every subject is presumed to be autonomous - directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are one’s authentic self. Therefore it abides by ideology of political neutrality which requires the state to remain neutral in terms of the choices subjects make regarding their lifestyles thereby safeguarding their autonomy. However in such a case, the presumption of this existential autonomy has the possibility of being threatened.

For example, consider the following:

Until 1794, France, a liberal democracy, was embroiled with slavery. Sugar, coffee and cotton plantations were thronged with black and mixed race workers who were forced to work under a stringent code of conduct - ‘Code Noir’. In 1794, however, The French government criminalized and abolished slavery completey.

The act of ‘abolishment’ of slavery was intrinsically paternalistic in nature, however it reconciles with objectives of liberalism in that it protects the autonomy of subjects who’s autonomy is endangered by the the act of enslavment. Therefore, by harmonizing the principles of both liberalism and neutralism, this paternalistic policy is justified.

To substantiate the previous claim, it is imperative to reconcile liberalism and law. Practitioners of liberalism conceive the law as an instrument whose fundamental role is securing the freedoms of an individual. Thus if laws, which may be termed paternalistic in nature, merely abide by the principle of protecting an individual's freedoms, they are inherently embodying liberalism. This principle forms the bases for enumerate paternalistic policies such as prohibiting entering explosive machinery complexes, jumping from roller coaster rides or making the act of wearing seatbelts compulsory. Bodily injury, incarceration and enslavements are examples which substantiate possible ‘harm’ or threats to the autonomy, which a liberal democracy claims to posit, of a subject. If on the other hand we entirely reject the idea of state paternalism, we are opening society to mass atrocities, injuries and injustices.As such, paternalistic policies prohibiting or preventing these only serve to further ensure the primary postulate of liberal society - autonomy and are therefore justified in this context.

Another facet to view this dilemma at hand is through the lens of Mill’s Harm principle. A liberal democracy rests on the principle of individualism which emphasizes the rights and dignity of each subject of society. Therefore in a circumstance where the actions of a subject pose indirect or direct ‘harm’ to other subjects, this very pillar of a liberal democracy is violated in every sense. It thus becomes the responsibility of the state, whose role is to safeguards the liberty of subjects, to ordain policies which serve to upholding safety and liberty. However, it is imperative to foreground that the harm principle only justifies interference in cases with harm to ‘others’; it in fact prohibits interference in cases of self harm or consensual harm.

The second condition where state paternalism can be justified is where a subject desires to but is unable to retract his initial choice. The theory of ‘Weakness of the Will’ describes an inherent tendency of subjects to know what lies in their best interests, but nevertheless make a choice that leads to a suboptimal outcome. However, there are certain circumstances wherein the outcome leads to a great degree of harm and subjects are unable to retract these choices, particularly upon recognizing the optimal initial choice they should have made.

Consider the example of consumption of hard drugs:

A drug consumer A may realise the ill-effects of extreme consumption of heroin and thus desire to quit the very activity, however the addictive nature of actions posits immense difficulties for him to do so, in fact in a realistic case do not allow him to.

In such cases where the potential sub-optimal outcomes classify as either ‘severe’ or ‘death’ for the subject, who may not have intended to pursue these outcomes, according to the levels of harm proposed by the World Health Organization, endorsement of paternalistic policies is justified in an attempt to prevent an expeditious rise in the mortality rate of any society, and serve its function to provide the framework for subjects to develop in accordance with their desires.

The most prominent opposing argument regarding state paternalism is that the state does not have sufficient knowledge of the subjects to interfere.However, in his ‘Theory of Justice’ Rawls pursued that in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, one is denied any particular knowledge of one’s circumstances, such as one’s gender, race, particular talents or disabilities, one’s age, social status, one’s particular conception of what makes for a good life, or the particular state of the society in which one lives. Persons are also assumed to be rational and disinterested in one another’s well-being. The aforementioned conditions are in fact the conditions which allow one to endorse just principles and policies for they stem from impartial initial conditions. A liberal society too rests on the foundation of ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ and in accordance with this ‘Theory of Justice’ the so declared ‘lack of knowledge of the subjects’ may serve to the very condition that entitles the state to ‘interfere’ i.e endorse policies and laws that are intrinsically fair, justifying the very roots of state paternalism.

Therefore, while state interference may be perceived as incompatible with the ideals of a liberal democracy, paternalistic policies are impartial in essence, serve the purpose of protecting or promoting these very ideals in lieu of the subjects in the aforementioned conditions and are thus in every sense, justified.