Why you didn’t properly consent to listening to me ramble… Coercion and choice Why you didn’t properly consent to listening to me ramble…

When are they important Policy debates essentially Should x activity (gambling, prostitution, drugs etc. etc. etc.) be banned/legalised for everyone Should y choice (take part in drug trials, selling certain rights) be given to groups of people for a reward These aren’t always the only ways to approach these debates, but are very often the top half and leave extension possibilities

Why are they important Libertarian arguments tend to say maximising choice is a good thing. More control of your own life means the state doesn’t have to be responsible for what you do. Paternalistic arguments tend to discuss why choices are coercive and can’t properly be consented to. Conversely coercing people into nice behaviour can be good, and restricting people from choices harmful to others can be as well

Choice- Why is it good Individuals tend to know more about their own circumstance than the state. If choice is curbed and bad things happen or good things don’t happen, that’s the states fault – conversely the chooser’s problem if bad things happen because they themselves caused it. Given individuals know more, they often can make better individual circumstance decisions – Do I prioritise money, or a 48 hour maximum working week.

Choice – Why can it be bad Most choices don’t just affect me. While some choices create mutually good scenario for everyone (I choose to work for a living) some just benefit me to the detriment of others. If Laura chooses to punch me, she may be right it’ll benefit her, but I might be sad as a result. It might create norms that the choice is expected, harming others I might choose not to look after my child in my self- interest, that’s probably bad

Choice – Rational choosing Choice is often good off the basis of assuming rational self-interest This isn’t always guaranteed, a number of things stop it happening. Mental problems, emotional extremes and lack of information are the obvious ones I might not also factor future me as an important agent but often they are. Maybe I shouldn’t be able to sell my arm for heroin. Similar arguments can be made about sterilising myself for money when real debates come along

How to construct rationality arguments I’m in a better place to find out things about my life. I probably know better than the state how strong my will-power is through personal experience or whether I mind working 60 hour weeks Generally speaking I’ll seek to preserve myself, I’m unlikely to choose to do something that actively harms me. It’s up to you as a debater to prove that in the debate in question, all or most people will act with this general rule, rather than the exceptions which stop self- preservation

Deconstructing rationality arguments People tend to have powerful short term incentives. This is where future me comes, the further offset a reward, no matter how big, the more likely I am to choose a much smaller short term one – likewise with harms. It’s not always true that people have more information available to them, wider harms can be viewed by the state when you’re unnecessarily optimistic about individual circumstance (I won’t get addicted I’ll just use drugs for fun) These tend to need to be backed up by strong paternalistic state arguments, the state must have a duty to prevent these self-inflicted harms

Coercion – Choices that aren’t choosing The principles of coercion are simple, negative incentives to do something are so large no rational person would do them. These aren’t always bad, states have a monopoly of force in order to impose coercive limitations on choices - like shooting people and stealing They are bad in things like mugging where my choice is forced to be getting beaten up or losing my stuff – that’s not really a fair choice.

Who does coercion affect Often it comes down to discussions about very poor people or those in desperate circumstances Lots of medical debates will centre around desperate people being given choices to do new types of drugs. Lots of social action debates centre around poor people choosing to do things to put bread on the table – Is this motion truly coercive or more parallel with working? 1: The choice is coercive enough that they can’t properly choose to take the risks 2: That even if they can’t choose it’s plausible bad things happen they didn’t properly consent to

Why coercion isn’t always bad Often we don’t call it this, but the state coerces you to do things like pay taxes if you wouldn’t voluntarily That’s probably good as it solves collective action problems where individual disincentives stop things happen Coercing hiring practices may stop big social harms happening, but it does infringe on a companies autonomy and its executives Coercing people into accepting customers may be good or bad when we think about B&B owners

THW allow workers to sell their employment rights Government: Individuals know how to value certain employment rights better than the state knows for everyone Even if they don’t it’s not the governments problem to protect them after that choice Opposition: If I’m competing with people who are selling rights it coercively forces me to sell them to compete as a worker The government is just right to force employers to uphold things like freedom from unfair dismissal because it can cause lots of bad things