Alain de Botton on the Nanny State

In a society that took seriously our laziness about being nice, an occasional paternalistic reminder would not necessarily constitute an infringement of our "liberty" as that term should be properly understood. Being free should not invariably entail being left totally to one's own devices, it should also be compatible with being admonished and harnessed. Complete freedom can be a prison all of its own.

A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state

I usually enjoy de Botton's writings, but he is pretty damn stupid in his defense of the nanny state. The first thing he gets wrong is the idea that freedom is our supreme public virtue. I fail to see that. Libertarians comprise a minority of both societies in the USA and the UK. If the thinks we live in a current society of absolute freedom, he needs to wake the fuck up.

In the USA, we have laws about wearing seatbelts and where we can smoke. Workplaces must conform to OSHA rules. You can't get on an airplane without having your privates X-rayed or groped. Politicians introduce various pieces of legislation trying to police everything from abortion to how much salt you put in your food. This is the "libertarian" society de Botton talks about.

De Botton goes on to praise religious societies for all their rules governing behavior. First of all, do we really need to become a virtual theocratic state? And secondly, are theocratic societies any better than others? Do all those rules actually make people better?

Alain makes a very weak argument for trying to "nudge" people into proper behavior. I don't have a problem with public service announcements that are privately bought. But the government "nudges" people by passing a law and putting a gun to their heads. On this basis, I should go into the nearest McDonald's with a Smith & Wesson and order everyone to eat the salad. This is fucking absurd.

Someone should take Alain de Botton and punch him in the face repeatedly in order to "nudge" his stupid ass into common sense. Enlightened people choose rational activities because they make sense. This means appealing to reason. For de Botton, his urge to help masks nothing less than his urge to rule other people. Here's something de Botton should consider that would have been of much greater benefit to humanity than any nanny state proposals he makes--MIND YOUR OWN GODDAMN FUCKING BUSINESS.

What a stupid fucker.

UPDATE: Alain has taken the time to send me an email, so I share it here.

Dear Charlie,

I enjoy your stuff and a bit of rough and tumble is to expected, but is it really important to your argument to write 'Wake the fuck up...' 'Fucking absurd', 'punch him in the face', 'mind your own goddamn fucking business...'
If it isn't, that would be great, as it's my firm belief that 2 people can disagree with each other without wishing to get into a fist fight. Whatever our differences on our need for moral guidance, let's at least not start punching.

Alain

This was my reply:

Alain,

Government is violence. That is the point you neglected to deal with in your piece. This is what makes libertarians howl. Whenever a statist makes some point, libertarians don't see the "wisdom" in the proposal. They see the government gun aimed at them to enforce the proposal.

Statism is a call for violence. I am not a violent person, but you really pissed me off with that piece because you have called for violence. You probably don't see it that way, but I do. By being a statist, you are being a violent person.

You have had more influence on me and many others in a moral direction than any government ever has or ever will. Your words and your reason have done more for my moral improvement than any idea combined with a gun. It seems that every philosopher wants to be king and make everything right. Why? What idea ever got better by the use of force?

You need to rethink your position on this. Your "nudge" is the punch in the face. If you believe that I don't need it for my arguments, then you certainly don't need it for yours. You don't teach reason with violence, and you have contemplated violence as a means to an end. That piece is the dumbest thing you have ever written.

C.

This was Alain's reply to me:

Dear Charlie,

You start out with a premise with which I can't agree; government is violence.
I grew up in Switzerland and now live in the UK. I don't see either government being violent to me. These governments have their limitations, they are not violent against the citizen except in certain circumstances (law breaking etc).
I would never want to impose my philosophy through force - nor even recruit government to do it necessarily. But influence beyond books, yes, why not.
Why should a nudge be a punch in the face? A punch is a punch and a nudge a nudge: why the conflation?
As for this being 'the dumbest thing I've written,' I've written plenty of stuff that would drive you mad.

Alain

This was my reply to Alain:

They are not violent against the citizen except in certain circumstances.

I want you to think about that statement. Then, I want you to consider our current drug war in the USA. Some kid smokes dope, so for his own good, the government locks him up to be exposed to battery, sexual assault, and even murder. When I point out that the punishment is more detrimental than the crime, drug war proponents justify this disparity to keep other people from smoking dope. To save people from their vices, we kidnap them, incarcerate them, and leave them at the mercy of real criminals. But this is an extreme example.

A mild example would be NYC's proposed ban on salt in food. This is Mayor Bloomberg's favorite "nudge." Naturally, Bloomberg is noted as someone who heavily salts his own food. It always mystifies me when people with personal problems try to amend them by making everyone else do what they are unable to do. Under the proposal, a restaurant would be fined $1000 or face closure. This is theft of a business.

Now, we have you. You have some good ideas about how people should behave. You might write more books. You might go on television and speak. You might volunteer for some ad campaign urging people to consider what you say. I have no issue with this. Yet, what will the government do that you are unable to do? What does the government have that you don't? Clearly, political leaders have bully pulpits, and I see nothing wrong with expressing opinions and exhortations. But what does government bring to the equation? The threat of violence. You will do as you are told or face the consequences.

The "nudge" philosophy such as that proposed by Cass Sunstein is simply a way to try and rehabilitate statism. It is the epitome of passive aggression. It reminds me of Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The best example of this nudge philosophy is the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance here in the USA. Basically, you buy health insurance, or you get fined. This fine will most likely be levied by the IRS. Buy a product or have your money taken from you. This is what the nudge looks like. It is simply a choice between two unpalatable alternatives. Since it is a choice, it gets called "freedom."

Here's an idea. Why don't we appeal to people's reason? Of course, the problem with that is that people often choose things we find unreasonable. But who are you to decide what is best for others? What makes you or anyone else so special and enlightened as to have the right to nudge others or simply force them into behavior patterns?

What is so hard about minding your own damn business? Why can't you and your ilk just let people be? Why do your choices have to be my choices?

C.

I decided awhile back when some statist made his usual proposals to fuck with the lives of other people that I was going to start treating it for what it really is--a threat to my wellbeing and respond to them in the same manner as someone who enters a room and starts threatening people.

Statists believe in violence. If they didn't, they would be libertarians like myself. They would follow the Principle of Non-Aggression. "Nudge" theories are simply passive aggression. Since overt aggression leads to so much backlash, the nudgers opt for manipulation. I really despise manipulators. The one good thing I can say about an unapologetic tyrant is they at least have the balls to be who they are and not pretend to be something else. The most sickening aspect of 1984 was that Big Brother demanded not only obedience but also your love.

From a purely consequentialist standpoint, this nudging is what gave us the housing bubble as politicians and bureaucrats attempted to get everyone into a home. That was a disaster. We now see the same thing happening in higher ed as people are pushed to go to college only to graduate with debt and slim employment opportunities. No one was forced to do these things. They were simply incentivized to do these things through the availability of easy credit supplied by Uncle Sam and the Fed. The result is that taxpayers are soaked to correct the damage. Once again, it would be better if the government had left people alone. This is the law of unintended consequences.

Alain may have more to share or decide that I am just a fucknut. But I believe that cussing these people out and treating them as threatening people is a good strategy. You should respond to them in the same way as someone who invades your home, looks through your belongings, steals what he likes, and dictates to you how you should live. This is because this is what these people do. They just use the government instead of doing it themselves.

UPDATE 2: This is the conclusion of our email exchange.

I think we can agree that the state (as in the government) shouldn't try to advise anyone to do anything, BUT all kinds of actors in civil society should.
That's really the essence of my point - and I hope you agree with that too.
Let's keep government out, but let's not have a silent public space either...
Alain

My reply:

I'm totally in agreement with that.

I have read some of your work (Consolations), and all your books are on my reading list (near the top no less.) I suspect that you feel frustrated that your thoughts and ideas don't have a greater impact. But they do have an impact. This is because they have impacted me. I watched your special on Nietzsche twice, and I found it very inspiring. You do the world a great service.

Here in the USA, we have the First Amendment which gives us freedom of expression. When someone like Mel Gibson utters racist remarks, he breaks no law. But the social approbation he has received shows that society does give its nudges. People decry what he said. They lampoon him. Gibson tries to appear contrite. He does what he can to weather the hailstorm of criticism. But the damage to his reputation is immense. Mel exercised his freedom of expression, and now, he endures what others express to him. Just because there is freedom does not mean there is no consequence. If you look, all of society from art to movies to philosophy to sports is one great moral discourse. Appeals to religious dogma and government force represent an end to this discourse. History shows us what happens when the discourse ends. This is when the atrocities begin.

Anyway, I wish you well in your projects. Thanks for "roughing" it up with me.

Take care,
C.

Posted in: