If the answer is that I wouldn’t want my daughter to do it, then I don’t mind the government passing a law against it. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be a cocaine addict or a prostitute, so in spite of the fact that it would probably be more economically efficient to legalize drugs and prostitution subject to heavy regulation/taxation, I don’t mind those activities being illegal.
Steven D. Levitt, saving us from ourselves, on the Freakonomics blog (via Feministing)
I suppose I should give Levitt at least a little credit. Unlike the many writers and politicians who merely behave as if they think the government should treat all citizens like children, Levitt has the nerve to present an explicit defense of literal government paternalism.
Leavitt says that for things he wouldn’t want his daughter to do, he doesn’t mind that activity being illegal. Does he realize that some parental opinions would be less restrictive than his, and some would be far more restrictive? Whose “daughter test” is reasonable to apply? The one that prohibits marrying a poor man or a man of a different race? The one that criminalizes short skirts? The one that prohibits practicing a religion other than Mom and Dad’s?
Here’s my test for whether or not I mind if the government declares something illegal. If a behavior uses force, fraud or coercion to violate a non-consenting person’s right to life, liberty or property, and there is a constitutional basis for the government’s power to pass a law against it, then I don’t mind it being illegal. Otherwise, I do mind very much. Whether or not the law has a direct impact on me and my family. Principles are like that.
(via mollycrabapple)
