[thegrimmest]

Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you.

To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.

[andersonvom]

If the two horrible options were free from context, sure. But that's hardly (if ever) the case. It is very convenient to start from a place where A has power over B, then say "B is free to choose whatever crappy options A offers, because... freedom".

[thegrimmest]

We have to start from some place don't we? Even if we perfectly redistributed wealth tomorrow, we'd see billionaires in a generation or two.

[andersonvom]

This only goes to show that the current system is inherently broken, but this is a completely different conversation.

[Apocryphon]

What is wrong with paternalism?

[thegrimmest]

The authoritarian and condescending nature of it.

[Apocryphon]

Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?

[thegrimmest]

It absolutely is! In the context of raising a child, it may be appropriate. When interacting with an equal it is not.

[Apocryphon]

What determines equality?

[thegrimmest]

It is a moral axiom:

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...