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
Furthermore, the authors aim to unfold the scientific logic of their analysis of the effects of hidden biases so people will be “better able to achieve the alignment,” between their behavior and intentions (Banaji and Greenwald, 2013) preface
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey Cannon further discusses this fault but with more emotional appeals, by use of personal narratives. Together these writers make it dramatically understandable why this combination of the food industry and politics is such a lethal ordeal. However, in The Food Lobbyists, Harold D. Guither makes a different viewpoint on the food industry/government argument. In his text Guither speaks from a median unbiased standpoint, which allows the reader to determine his or her own opinions of the food industries impact on government, and vise versa.
Warner, (2010) reported on an interview that Sarah Palin criticized Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move Campaign. She was interviewed in a conservative radio by host Laura Ingraham. Palin told Ingraham that the First Lady’s campaign amounts to a big government takeover to our food choices. She used frames such as: “cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, their own families in what we should eat”; government thinking to take over and make decisions for us”; “allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.
Rather, Buchanan proposed the field of public health to gain the public’s trust, needs to expand individual autonomy by promoting social justice while discussing the common portrayals of justice. The rationale behind Buchanan’s work is to bring understanding to an ethical issue of paternalism v. autonomy in public health. Paternalism can be justified given it protects the interest of the people and autonomy is an individual’s freedom from external control or influence. There are valid arguments for both sides, but in public health, paternalism is very useful situationally, while autonomy must be preserved and respected as it is an individual given right. Aiming for an ideal range where public health policy and individual freedom can overlap, no matter the inconsistencies, is the
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
The dominant ways of interpreting this speech was to take the facts for their actual and intended meaning (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). These facts would include the statistics involving texting while driving accidents. We believe that the majority of the audience were a part of the dominant class and believe that texting and driving is wrong. However, those who are part of the negotiated position tend to have mixed ideas about whether texting and driving is bad. This is because the use of the negotiated way of interpreting a speech is the use of believing, or accepting the information being introduced, as well as disregarding, or forgetting some of the information (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). We believe that there is still a fair amount of audience members who are in the negotiated position. While they do admit that texting and driving is wrong, many of them still will continue texting and driving because they do not believe that any bad consequences will ever arise from them doing it. Therefore, they reject the idea that it can happen to them. This group of people is still too large for comfort. The last group from Halls model is the oppositional position, who understand the intended meaning, but reject it and form their own opinion (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). In this particular speech, very few people
Abortion is a controversial topic in today’s society as many opinions from different social groups on whether it should be legal or not create the big question: should the government be able to take away a woman’s reproductive right if it is to protect a fetus? In the United States particularly, much of the debate since the 1970s has focused on the Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, in which the court proclaimed women's’ rights to abortion but declared that the states could limit and regulate the procedure. That means that currently, the state of California allows abortions, but many groups against abortion, mostly called “pro-lifers,” still try to fight against it and want it banned. Women have a right to their own body and should
Since the Welfare reform law was introduced in 1996 it has impacted American society greatly. The new welfare policy, named the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replaced the Aid to Family and Dependent Children (AFDC) program; they have five known differences that only affect the ones who need the assistance. Critics argue that the TANF has negatively impacted the society while some argue that it has not. Linda Burnham, author of “Welfare Reform, Family Hardship & Woman of Color,” asserts that “welfare reform has increased the hardship faced by many women leaving welfare for work and their movement into low-wage jobs, exposes them to higher level of housing insecurities, homelessness, food insecurity, and hunger.” She also argues that women of color “are especially vulnerable to the negative impact of welfare reform” (38).
As discussed in class, Paternalism, as a philosophical concept, embodies the notion of authority or guidance exercised by one entity over another, purportedly for their benefit. Rooted in the belief that individuals may lack the capacity or insight to make optimal decisions for themselves, paternalism justifies interventions or restrictions on personal freedom to promote well-being or prevent harm. This complex ethical stance has long been debated across various domains, from governance and public policy to healthcare and interpersonal relationships. In exploring paternalism, one confronts questions of autonomy, beneficence, and the delicate balance between individual liberty and collective welfare. In this essay, I will discuss the theory
Page. Analyzing the influence of political ‘actors’ on policymaking. The researchers wanted to understand the impact of elites, interest groups, and voters on the passing of public policies. Maximino stresses the meaning behind the impact in our government, “of how American politics works and the degree of influence that parties have on the decision-making process.” This is a basic summary of what to expect from the statically written research article concerning the evidence found determining U.S. policy outcomes.
Using my sociological imagination, I understand that I consciously take the stance of pro-choice since I’m exposed to different cultures which offer me awareness about the latent (unintended) and manifest (intended) consequences of abortion laws (). As a rational actor, I can weigh the benefits and disadvantages of having laws that legalize
For example, restricting the consumption of alcohol protects others from possible accidents due to drunk driving, it is also restricting people’s individual freedom to choose what, when and how much to drink. The use of seat belts prevents thousands of injuries and deaths in every single country in the world, a great public health policy, but at the same time having a law that demands people to wear seat belts imposes rules and restrictions to people as individuals, not as a community. Individual responsibility it is also very controversial, since how do we measure or determine how responsible is an individual and how should that individual face that
By taking a substantive, rather than procedural view of democracy, it is evident that simply relying on majority rule, and fair elections as a basis for decision making is insufficient in a democracy that wishes to be the most fair. A liberal and expansive view of democracy is better standard to set, than simply a procedural one. Simply looking for, or creating, democratic processes does nothing to actually create a fair and engaging society, which should be the goal of any democracy. While Waldron argues that there is no conclusive evidence that the outcomes of judicial review are better than the outcomes of the legislative process, and that judicial review inherently fails to be democratic as it provides less convincing answers than a democratic and majoritarian legislature to the questions: (1) why are these people privileged to make decisions?; and (2) why is the distribution of power in the decision making group structured the way it is? When combined with other criticisms, such as the lack of agreement of what rights people actually hold and the inflexibility of written formulations of rights, there is indeed good reason to question judicial review.