Three Cheers For The Nanny State Summary

1557 Words4 Pages

In her New York Times article, “Three Cheers for the Nanny State”, author Sarah Conly offers an argument affirming paternalistic laws and policies in democratic societies. In this piece, she voices support and is in favor of government intervention for the purpose of protecting people from actions or objects that can cause them harm. To illustrate her understanding and analysis, she utilizes an attempted “soda ban” as an example of a paternalistic policy. Speaking from a pluralist perspective, Conly acknowledges that laws must be sensitive to the needs of the majority, but that does not mean that these same laws should trample the rights of the minority (Conly). However, Conly’s view on paternalism has become rather controversial and is certainly not a view that is …show more content…

There are processes and systems in place to ensure that any piece of legislation, no matter how large or small, gets hundreds, if not thousands of eyes on it before it is even introduced to a voting body. Therefore, it is important to note that while each person may have their own set of cognitive biases, paternalistic policies that are created by governing bodies allow for collaboration and different perspectives. Many of the biases Conly listed in her article are more applicable to one’s individual, private actions. When one is speeding and appealing to their optimism bias that they will not get into a car accident, that is an individual choice that no other individual influences. There is no other perspective to challenge the views of the speeder. Whereas, on the Senate floor, there are dozens of individuals who will come together and share differing perspectives and views on a piece of legislation, paternalistic or not, even though they each have their own biases. Therefore, I find that Yarbrough’s argument rather weak, as she focuses on discrediting Conly instead of presenting new

Open Document