« Moaning on Irish Talk Radio - NewsTalk today | Main | Institute of Philosophy has a new weblog »

August 10, 2007

Comments

outeast

A 'yes, but': Surely the NHS argument could readily be extended from seatbelts to (for example) boxing or the use of recreational drugs? Since paternalistic laws generally protect people from injuries that would likely hit the public purse it is a near-universal answer (if accepted as valid). In fact, the NHS argument does not seem to be far from the case Hattersley is making: he points out (not unfairly) that 'almost everything we do for good or ill has an effect on the rest of society'. He cites the impacts of passive smoking and environmental damage as two examples of this effect, but NHS impacts would seem to fall under the same category.

Somewhat OT, I find it mildly ironic that Hattersley dismisses Mill's philosophy as 'great for the 19th century middle classes' in preferenence for 'a more positive view of liberty [that requires] the freedoms of the few to be constrained ... to protect the freedoms of the many'. The latter formulation sounds strangely Utilitarian - and I seem to remember Bentham relying on a similar argument to come up with a number of policies (like the new poor laws) which were proverbially 'great for the 19th century middle classes.'

David

Exactly - the NHS is an affront to liberty.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Get Virtual Philosopher by email...

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

My Podcasts

My Art and Photography Weblog

Philosophy: The Classics

Philosophy Bites

Ethics Bites