Key in the cognition

07:16 am - Why giving ignorant people the freedom to screw up is bad for society

I'd been thinking about putting this argument into words for several days now after discussing the issue with several people recently but this blog entry finally prompted me to actually do it.

---

I'm a big proponent of individual freedoms, generally ranking them higher than other desirable goals like financial security, professional recognition, physical comfort, convenience, personal safety, privacy, etc. (not listed in any particular order here). I do, however, believe that these freedoms should not include the ability to harm other people; that includes one's own children.

In a discussion with adamspitz several months ago he decreed that parents should be allowed to raise their kids in the manner they felt was best but that other people could intervene if they felt that a child was being abused or neglected and wanted to take on the responsibility of raising this child themselves. I don't like this because it does not specify any checks on the intervening parent. Who gets to decide if children are being mistreated severely enough to warrant being taken away from their birth parents? If parents choose to let their kids fall into destructive patterns of behaviour (e.g. laziness, violence, dangerously unhealthy diet, etc.) then do we deem that to be neglectful? One could just as easily interpret such parental behaviour as merely allowing children the freedom to make bad decisions. But we don't let children purchase tobacco or gamble because we believe that they are largely incapable of making responsible decisions on those matters. So why do we let adults who are clearly unfit to make responsible decisions do so?

Here's the same argument worded differently. By allowing people to raise their children in any manner they see fit, we are allowing some of them to burden society with another generation of social failures: people who lead unhealthy lifestyles, get into debt and resort to crime. While it is possible to wash our hands off the first two problems by saying it's not our problem, the last one affects everybody. If society allows the existence of a system that produces people with nothing to lose by engaging in criminal activity then we will have to deal with the consequences. Furthermore, society as whole benefits in the long run when everybody is healthy and well-educated. Happy people are not only highly unlikely to commit crimes but also more likely to contribute to society in ways that help everybody. But we can't have a healthy and well-educated population if we allow people to make bad decisions due to their ignorance of the consequences.

What if we were to provide powerful incentives for people to make good decisions but allow them the freedom to do what they want if they can demonstrate that they are doing so in full knowledge of the consequences? The state gives people vouchers for education, health insurance, etc. but allows them to chose cash instead if they can pass a reasonable test (agreed upon by a set of generally well-respected researchers in the field) to demonstrate that they have a decent understanding of the current research about the effects of their decisions. They don't have to believe this stuff; just demonstrate that they are aware of and can follow it. How would this work in practice? If you want to gamble then you must show proof of passing a test that demonstrates you understand that on average you lose money by gambling and that it is not a reliable way to make money. If you want to drink then you must show proof of passing a test that demonstrates you understand the dangers of alcohol poisoning, alcoholism, etc. Replace the blunt instrument (an age barrier) with a more sensible one.

---

Make it harder to screw up by default but provide the option of doing as they wish to those who can demonstrate that they know what they are doing.