I have argued that the slippery slope of paternalism is real, and we are sliding down it. Defenders of paternalism argue there is no slippery slope because a) where would we fall from here? and b) why haven’t we begun sliding yet? I rush to point out paternalism that targets sugar and salt, and the defenders argue “Well, that’s just good policy. Let me know when we’ve actually started sliding down the slippery slope”. What happens is paternalists are forever moving the goalposts, and declaring the newest ban or tax just reasonable policy. Their burden of proof demands that that we slide two, three, or four steps down the slope at once instead of one step at at time, since the one step we’re taking now is just reasonable. We’re always seemingly at the bottom of the slope, and things aren’t so bad from here are they?
Well folks, we’ve reached a new slope bottom: San Francisco has banned the McDonalds Happy Meal.
Since paternalism defenders will surely claim this is “just reasonable policy, and if there is a slippery slope then where could we possibly slide to next?”, let me repeat what I wrote awhile ago:
I think it would be useful to for critics of the slippery slope theory of paternalism to demarcate now what future policies would constitute evidence that they are wrong, because my guess is the point of demarcation will move right along down the slope with policy. Several years ago many of todays critics of slippery slope theory would have said that an attempt to regulate salt would constitute evidence. But now, farther down the slope, salt regulation is just sensible policy.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ November 3rd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Rick Russell
Somebody on CafeHayek had a priceless answer… if the government had been providing food for 150 years, the idea of a private food market would be unthinkable. How would consumers choose food? How would they know what food was best? Who would invest in farms? Who would transport food? Who could afford the exorbitant prices that private grocery stores are forced to charge in the face of free government food?
Better to stand in line for our one meat, three vegetables and one bread rather than face such uncertainty about something so important as our food.
Wednesday ~ November 3rd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
jazzbumpa
You think it’s a big deal that one city bans putting a toy in a box of greasy starch. This is not a ban on any kind of food, it’s a ban on a pusher luring an impressionable child into a life time of addiction. They can sell the meal; they can sell the toy – they just have to decouple them. Next thing you know, they won’t be able to sell crack in the schoolyard. You are making a slippery mountain out of a throw away toy.
I see the FDA is looking at some sort of salt regulation.
http://www.newsrecord.org/nation-world/fda-moves-to-reduce-salt-in-american-diet-1.2233061
The article doesn’t say what methods are proposed.
To answer your question: I think it would be useful to for critics of the slippery slope theory of paternalism to demarcate now what future policies would constitute evidence that they are wrong,
1) The FDA (or any agency) proposes regulations just for the hell of it, not backed up by 30 years of research and the opportunity to save many thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
2) An onerous salt tax is levied to curb consumption. (Though why this is bad, while a gasoline tax is good, and not slope generating is beyond my little pea-brain.)
3) Placing salt shakers on restaurant tables is made illegal.
4) Jack-booted thugs break down my door and confiscate my salt shakers.
5) All of this results in a thriving black market in salt. (On 2nd thought, make that a white market.)
6) My favorite:
“It’s another encroachment on people’s personal freedom,” said Gary Howard, spokesman for Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian advocacy group formed in the wake of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.
“They’ve already gotten into people’s medical care,” said Howard. “Where will they go next? Will they mandate exercise?”
The answer to Howard’s question is, of course, YES!
Now, my challenge to you is to explain why, since the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, you refuse to give it up.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 3:21 am
Niklas Blanchard
To your first point (about the happy meals): That is a very, very strong statement. Luring an impressionable child into a lifetime of addiction?
Now, there are people that are probably addicted to fast food, but to claim that this is the median result of eating fast food as a child, and the causality being toys is pretty far out there…as I can’t remember the last toddler I saw bellying up to the counter at a McDonald’s and ordering himself a happy meal.
Furthermore, you’re making an argument based on asymmetric information that I don’t think actually exists. Given that it is parents that are the “pushers” in this situation, and given that you’d probably be hard pressed to find a parent that views a McD’s happy meal as the healthy alternative (as opposed to the cheap, convenient one); the obvious problem is parents making marginally bad choices for their children in an attempt to make their own lives much easier.
That’s laziness. But I’m not comfortable with the level of paternalism that dictates that toys need to be separated from high-calorie meals. You may be, and that is probably a point we’ll just have to agree to disagree on. On the more “fat tailed” side, is there a small probability that this is the first step toward broader definitions of child endangerment? I think there is a small probability that regulators will feel empowered to do something like that (although there may not be a direct causal link)…after all, you currently can’t malnourish a child. All you need to do is broaden the definition of “malnourishment” a little bit.
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
jazzbumpa
Niklas -
You put a lot of serious thought in what was basically a flippant comment.
So I’ll be serious too. Parents make those bad, lazy choices partly out of convenience, and party because the kids are clamoring for those toys. McD’s has brilliant marketing and they have those toys in the meals because they are highly effective at luring the kiddies – they have decades of real world data to influence their marketing decisions. And comparing a fast food habit to crack addiction is hyperbole, of course. But acclimating the youthful taste buds to high levels of salt and sugar will, I posit, influence bad choices when these kids grow up – as, frex, in the current generation of young parents. Hell, I took my kids to McD’s 35 years ago. Just not very often.
I note also that you have explicitly bought into the slippery slope fallacy.
Tsk, tsk,
JzB
Wednesday ~ November 3rd, 2010 at 10:43 pm
jazzbumpa
Now that I’ve looked again at a few slippery slope arguments, I note that you aren’t even constructing one.
1) Thing X has happened
2) This will lead to thing Y.
At least Howard did that. (And much hilarity ensued.)
You never got past step one. I guess this gives you essentially unlimited latitude for arbitrary goal-post placement.
So here is part 2 of my challenge: Since a slippery slope always leads to some unpleasant thing (if the slope is the rainbow arc down to a pot of gold, nobody complains) tell us where we are headed.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Adam Ozimek
JzB,
I am very thankful for your comments here, because they illustrate my point exactly.
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
jazzbumpa
The point that all of you are studiously avoiding is that none of this is telling anyone how to live their lives.
A restriction on a marketing scheme of a multi-national corporation translates to a loss of personal freedom.
Somebody, please explain that mental leap to me.
The present McD’s example is telling a multinational corporation how it can promote its products in a local market.
I guess in the post Citizens United world, that is an infringement of free speech – no?
I note also that my challenges have still been studiously avoidedl.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Sister Y
Some paternalism is harsh, some is gentle. Legislation that e.g. requires fast food places to post calorie counts very visibly is still paternalist, because it requires businesses to provide, and customers to receive, information that they might have otherwise chosen not to provide/receive. It might make people make better decisions, but it is a forcible intrusion with free speech (or free non-speech) and free exchange.
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
sardonic_sob
There was something I could buy yesterday that I couldn’t buy today. I’ve lost a freedom.
However, the real answer to your argument is that there is no difference between restricting supply and forbidding the purchase of a good or service. They have exactly the same effect on freedom. Would you argue it was not a serious infringement of my second amendment rights to make it illegal to sell gunpowder, guncotton, or any product containing them? I mean, I could still dig up my own guano and corn my own powder, right?
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Sardonic_sob
@jazzbumpa: Congratulations. You have negated the moving-the-goalposts argument by *removing the goalposts.* Fussbudgets who can’t understand that being told how to live their lives in accordance with scientific principles is just inherently desirable deserve to be unhappy. Praise Ford!
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
RickRussellTX
sardonic: replace “told how to live their lives” with “required to comply by force of law”. Now THAT’S paternalism
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
jazzbumpa
Rick -
Yes – exactly.
Examples, please.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ November 4th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Sister Y
Why is paternalism okay for minors but not for adults? Children have feelings, are rational, and their preferences vary from that of their parents.
The Happy Meal thing is basically metapaternalism – parents do a shitty job of taking care of their children, so the state steps in to tell them how to raise their children. Is there a right to be a shitty paternalist (parent)? “You’re telling me how to tell my children how to live their lives, how dare you!” What about the rights of the children to be free from the poorly-implemented, unchecked paternalism of their parents?
It’s not like you magically get a soul when you turn 18.
Sunday ~ November 7th, 2010 at 3:02 am
teageegeepea
The late Joe Sobran also asked liberals “In what society would you be a conservative?” Then he self-destructed.
A somewhat related idea is the Feser scale.
Sister Y, I think there is rarely a conflict in which the parent wants to give the kid a happy meal and the kid wants something healthier.
Monday ~ November 8th, 2010 at 8:54 am
The Future of Paternalism « Modeled Behavior
[...] recently challenged paternalism supporters to tell me, if the most recent headline paternalism that bans Happy Meals in San [...]
Thursday ~ November 18th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Overcoming Bias : Naked Classism
[...] San Francisco banned the McDonalds Happy Meal, Adam Ozimek said that illustrated the slippery slope of paternalism; if we’ll ban that, what won’t we [...]
Sunday ~ May 1st, 2011 at 11:29 am
Slippery slope of paternalism watch: advertising edition « Modeled Behavior
[...] time ago I challenged paternalists who don’t believe that regulation is characterized by a slippery slope to [...]