Citizen 440023423, you are being informed by your friendly government monitoring bot that health studies have shown a link between cancer, obesity, and heart disease by frequent computer and phone users. Your account has been deactivated for 2 weeks. Please engage in the recommended 1 hour of daily outdoor activity instead. In addition, we noticed you exceeded the 15 minutes of allowable phone and computer use, as recommended by experts at the ministry of citizen health. Your internet has been disabled for 1 week. A $25 charge for services has been added to your tax bill. Have a nice healthy day citizen 440023423.
Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare. Don't get me wrong; I think the government should leave people alone as much as possible. But jumping straight onto the slippery slope seems like a thought-terminating cliché — rather than leading to an actual discussion about how best to manage individual freedoms while living in a society. (and no, the answer is not "everybody is free to do everything" just as it isn't "nanny state knows best; eat your veggies or else")
>Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare.
Perhaps because those nudges are already a totalitarian nightmare. People should control the government, not the other way around, and definitely not their personal lives and habbits.
The prohibition or the "war on drugs" weren't some made up fantasy nightmare, but very real history of a totalitarian nightmare.
The government has determined that engaging in online discussions where users disagree increase blood pressure and decreases happiness. Your comment will be deleted and account suspended. You have exceeded your 15 minutes per day of phone and computer use, deemed as the permissible limit by the council for citizen health, your internet account is suspended until next week. This should help you to walk outside. Your tax bill has increased by $16 for processing fees. Thank you citizen, have a nice day.
I'm saying that third parties like states deciding what is or isn't "for the benefit" of the people (as opposed to being told what the people want) is not good for them. It's crossing boundaries and it's infantilizing.
For two cases where it's gone horribly wrong consider the prohibition and the "war on drugs". Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns...
If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing?
> Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns...
Bad example, as it turns out that eating a regular amout of fat is fine. The gov't was wrong.
Here's a better example: food corporations actively market sugar-filled cereals, "juices", "fruit snacks", etc to both parents and kids, actively misleading them on what a healthy human diet is. This had contributed to a surge in obesity and all the related health problems. This puts strain on the medical system, raises insurance premiums, and generally makes society worse.
So do I support making it harder for corporations to market their HFC garbage to kids and parents? Hell yes. Do I support making it illegal for tobacco corps to market to kids? Yes again. And I say this as someone who enjoys sugar and smoking, to a reasonable degree.
>If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing?
Regulation is not the same as nudges towards personal health and discouragment-taxation towards "what's good for you".
>It's infantalizing for you to claim that they aren't consciously choosing that.
The "majority of people" aren't even asked about things like this, and they're constantly lied to and betrayed on the subject of electoral promises of all kinds, even on way more major issues. Not to mention being treated like cattle that needs to be "told what to want" and to be whipped into shape by technocrats and policy advisors.
So, invoking what the government does as a proxy of "what people wants" is very shaky grounds...
To be frank, alcohol, most drugs, and fat are not the same. Every time I go to a place where smoking is not culturally frowned upon, I can't make a few steps without inhaling vomit-inducing smoke. If it wasn't for this, then I would agree with you.
If not the state, the free market will fill the gap and tell us what is for our own benefit, bet a lot more boundaries get crossed when the tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry etc. get free reign.
In this case, it is also for the benefit of others, as second hand smoke causes and/or contributes to cancer, emphysema, and a myriad of other lung and heart diseases.
Yes, people not coerced "for their own benefit" will generally keep their habbits