> A paternalistic intervention [...] might well result in people living lives they were happier with than the lives they would have chosen for themselves
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the pater making the decisions is wiser and more able to make correct decisions for others than others themselves. In a utopia, the decision maker might be the smartest, wisest person alive, with a nigh god-like ability to discern what's best for everyone. In reality, the decision maker is just a regular Joe. Worse, in democracies like the US and UK -- where potential leaders seem to primarily be chosen solely on the basis of social class (when did you last see a genuinely lower class politico?) -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that the leader has cognitive abilities that are above those of the population.
In a utopia, a paternalist system would work because the decisions made by the pater would be better than those made by the populace. In reality, it results in USSR supermarkets stuffed with canned tomatoes because the ever-wise pater wasn't even able to predict people's most basic wants.
> in democracies like the US and UK -- where potential leaders seem to primarily be chosen solely on the basis of social class (when did you last see a genuinely lower class politico?) -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that the leader has cognitive abilities that are above those of the population.
The upper classes generally seem to have a lower time preference than "average joe", which is an encouraging factor for this kind of politician. (If anything I worry that the rise of a populist politics where lower-class leaders are electable will lower the stability of the country - to my mind the last genuinely lower class prime minister was a certain greengrocer's daughter)
> In reality, it results in USSR supermarkets stuffed with canned tomatoes because the ever-wise pater wasn't even able to predict people's most basic wants.
Sure, no-one would advocate a centrally planned economy. But I think there's a case for soft incentives - central government funding for museums, art galleries, and universities; taxation of drugs and perhaps of sports or similar popular entertainments. These things have a long history but are being undermined by a postmodern view that says that all art is equally valuable, that popular music is just as worthy of funding as experimental music, popular authors just as worthy as literary authors.
In recent years I've seen what feels like a dumbing down of e.g. the Proms - indeed, of the whole BBC - justified on the grounds that it should give the people what they want. And while that's an important consideration - there's no point in a public service channel that no one watches - it shouldn't be the only one. Even as imperfect humans, we should try and help people better themselves, rather than just leave them to what they want.
> In recent years I've seen what feels like a dumbing down of e.g. the Proms - indeed, of the whole BBC
I can't argue whether this is the case or not, because I rarely watch TV. I've heard that BBC4 is quite cerebral, but I've also heard no-one watches it, yet I'm pretty sure this means that no-one would watch its contents even if they were the sole thing on the television. It seems that most people don't find cerebral activities fun.
I went to your typical rough, inner-city, London comprehensive, and saw precisely the 'bottom 55%' being debated here on a daily basis. It certainly seemed to me that these people would never have been interested in cerebral activities even if they would have been offered. Whenever a cerebral activity (e.g., reading Lord of the Flies) presented itself, they diverted across to violence, or gossip, or some other form of utter rejection of the cerebral activity on offer.
I have no reason to believe that it'd be possible -- or indeed positive -- to force these people to play up to the interests of their social 'betters'. I'd rather we accept who they are than demand they play the role of poseur. Like with everything else in life, I'm sure that the place to intercept this problem -- the issue of people wasting their life on entertainment -- is in childhood. One clear consistency among the lower classes I grew up with was that their parents either didn't give a damn about their kids (sadly the case for a huge number of them), or were too busy with the demands of being a single parent to dedicate time to raising them.
If we want a civilization which is more interested in learning and self-improvement than X-Factor, then we'll have to start with making sure that our civilization's parents are willing and able to emphasize learning and self-improvement over X-Factor.
Not sure the pater agent needs to be wiser, not even seen as wiser, more the result of some people psychology not willing to take decisions and happy this way (butler mentality) meanwhile others want/need this position to feel fulfilled.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the pater making the decisions is wiser and more able to make correct decisions for others than others themselves. In a utopia, the decision maker might be the smartest, wisest person alive, with a nigh god-like ability to discern what's best for everyone. In reality, the decision maker is just a regular Joe. Worse, in democracies like the US and UK -- where potential leaders seem to primarily be chosen solely on the basis of social class (when did you last see a genuinely lower class politico?) -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that the leader has cognitive abilities that are above those of the population.
In a utopia, a paternalist system would work because the decisions made by the pater would be better than those made by the populace. In reality, it results in USSR supermarkets stuffed with canned tomatoes because the ever-wise pater wasn't even able to predict people's most basic wants.