Talk:Libertarian paternalism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:53, 23 December 2008

Philosophy: Social and political Unassessed Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Talk:Soft paternalism

I want to distinguish between paternalism and "soft paternalism" so I think that theses

Calcium fortification of orange juice.
Folic acid addition to bread and cereal products.
Smoking bans in public places.
Fluoridation of water

are examples of paternalism - ie "But unlike “hard” paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aim only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice"

Since it would take way to long for people to discuss it then change it I will change it now--Mrebus 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to re-direct this to communism. This is Barack Obama's philosophy. Anything he says is obviously communist!!!! Just kidding.Electricbassguy (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SEP article on paternalism give a rather different notion of soft paternalism. Its example, which it attributes to Mill, is that if you can't communicate to someone that a bridge is damaged and would be dangerous to walk on (because you don't speak the person's language, say) then it is legitimate to forcibly prevent the person from using the bridge on the assumption that the person would make this choice himself if he knew of the danger. 22 December 2008

Revision as of 08:43, 23 October 2008 edit Electricbassguy (talk \| contribs) 1,010 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:53, 23 December 2008 edit undo 24.2.125.11 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:

	We need to re-direct this to communism. This is Barack Obama's philosophy. Anything he says is obviously communist!!!! Just kidding.[[User:Electricbassguy\|Electricbassguy]] ([[User talk:Electricbassguy\|talk]]) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)		We need to re-direct this to communism. This is Barack Obama's philosophy. Anything he says is obviously communist!!!! Just kidding.[[User:Electricbassguy\|Electricbassguy]] ([[User talk:Electricbassguy\|talk]]) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

			The SEP article on paternalism give a rather different notion of soft paternalism. Its example, which it attributes to Mill, is that if you can't communicate to someone that a bridge is damaged and would be dangerous to walk on (because you don't speak the person's language, say) then it is legitimate to forcibly prevent the person from using the bridge on the assumption that the person would make this choice himself if he knew of the danger. 22 December 2008