The EU’s Greek Bailout, Research Paper Example

In general terms, JS Mill is opposed to paternalism.  He has however indicated that there may be mitigating circumstances were intervention is warranted.  Overall, he believes that it should only be in extreme cases where freedom of speech is not permitted.  It might be argued that this is perhaps the cornerstone of a democratic society.  Mills was also responsible for his doctrine on the ‘harm principle’ and those who conduct hate speeches.  An example of this might be Adolf Hitler  and his hate speech against the Jewish people in Germany.  The ‘harm principle’ is that such speeches cause harm because they incentivize people to do harm to others by instilling a doctrine of hatred in them.  It is the difference of allowing freedom of speech and expression of opinion without it being targeted for violent purposes.  In 1938, the event of Kristallnacht or night of broken glass saw  Germans venting their anger on the Jews by wrecking homes, burning their synagogues, etc.  It resulted in 1350 synagogues being destroyed, 91 Jews killed 30,000 thrown into concentration camps.

George Katch and Mills both maintain that if we ban or limit speech because of the harm it creates that we would need to ban  most of the political speeches.  They maintain that it undermines the principles of democratic citizenship and that we might best focus our efforts on religious speech that are  hateful, useless, dishonest and promote the war of bigotry.

Paternalism has been defined as” acting for the good of another person against their will or without their consent.”  (New world encyclopedia).   There were a number of leading philosophers that were opposed to the concept of paternalism.  These included Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Jack Russo, and John Rawls.  It was however Immanuel Kant in the 18th century who was perhaps the first to argue against paternalism.  He believed that the main purpose of the government was to protect freedom and as such, people  should be left to their own devices, provided they did not threaten freedom on the democratic rights of others.

In general terms, people respect the laws of the land and rely upon the courts and  law enforcement to protect them from the more serious crimes perpetrated by society.  i.e.  murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping and child abuse etc. on the other hand, concepts of paternalism and big brother mentality from the government and others regulating bodies are rejected.  One of the main reason for this is that democratic societies hate invasion of privacy and we respect our needs for both freedom of speech and movement.  It is however possible to reconcile some of the differences in belief. ” Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. It encompasses workplace monitoring, Internet privacy, data collection, and other means of disseminating private information.”  (US Legal).

There are numerous examples of where we might reconcile our opinions with this act of paternalism. The biggest single threat being the seduction of our children on the internet by paedophiles who try to arrange meetings with them by using often false identities that lure the children into a sense of false security.  In this sense we do not object to police authorities monitoring chat rooms and other website addresses where there is a perceived sense of threat to the children.  this intrusion would be deemed permissible because it is reconciling a more important need and that of the safety and protection of children.  Another example might be monitoring the use of our credit cards when conducting financial transactions on the internet. This if targeted to the prevention of fraudulent use and others that would take advantage of defrauding us by stealing money through unauthorised credit card transactions.  Another issue is that of identity theft and police monitoring the applied use of sensitive information being used i.e. use of our social insurance numbers, use of our passport numbers, taking information illegally from stores that hold databases of our personal information.  The latter is based upon information that we provide freely to help facilitate transactions with merchants and stores.  We strongly object to such information being shared, copied or used by other to generate mailing lists etc.

Thomas Hobbes was credited with the transfer of modern thinking to Britain.  He viewed human beings as being physical objects, those with desires and appetites had to be fulfilled.  We were all motivated to leave out discomforts and promoter of well-being.  Hobbes stated that genuine human freedom is the ability to carry out will without the interference of others. (Kemerling).  He stated that individuals make judgments of right or wrong based upon the conscience, by following religious doctrines and acquiring properties to access.  He felt that ultimately disproved to be the downfall of commonwealths.  He was certainly prove right after the American Revolutionary wars.

One case study of paternalism relate to that of the government in Italy.  Recent governments have been riddled with corruption, scandals, illegal campaigning and corrupt financing.  All this and the fact that  Italy sits at the very heart of the modern European democracy.  This paternalistic democracy has resulted in a lack of political legitimacy.  It has been proven that democratic reforms have been adequate to control corruption.  The Italian case study has proven that democracy and the free market are not inherently an antidote to corruption.” (COLAZINGARI).  Coming right up to date the Greek Government have adopted a paternalistic stance to its people and plunged them into one of the severest financial crisis in Greek history.  They have not managed the situation well and they are now looking for their paternal partners in the EU to bail them out.  There is equally talk of both Portugal and Spain being in similar situations and also requiring bail out .. ” This has always been a puzzle. If Germany can only allow Greece to borrow money at market rates, and market rates are killing Greece, how would a bail-out help? The language of the agreement reached by the 16 euro zone leaders at the most recent EU summit last month offered little help in squaring the circle.”  (Charlemagne).

H.L.A. Hart has suggested that Mills use of paternalism goes to such lengths that it makes the concept almost implausible in modern society. ” If we no longer sympathise with Mills view it is due in part to a general decline in the belief that individuals know their own interests best”  (Garren).  Hart however may have misinterpreted Mills as in the end he (Mills) comes to reject paternalism.

Whereas both Mills and John Rawls admits the concept of paternalism to occur under certain conditions, nevertheless it does seem to clash with the ideas and concepts of liberal democracy.  Karl Marx stated that substantial democracy is “where people workers and peasants can effectively participate in managing the  social arrangements, and ultimately becoming the master of their own country.”  (He)

In China, the people cannot control their own rulers and cannot see the influence those who control the political decision-making process.  This creates a contradiction, where the paternalistic leaders resort to what has been referred to as the Vanguard theory.

Many contemporary liberal theories support JS Mill’s viewpoints, however in practice, very few support the concept of letting individuals make their own choices for themselves.  This is how they justified the use of state paternalism.  i.e. they wish to prevent individual harming themselves  and in some cases this involves intervention.  It is questionable as to who makes the choice and equally how the individual right to freedom of choice is not violated.  Hence you have the concept of invoking protective legislation without violating a person’s right to choice.  Perhaps one of the supreme contradictions here is that of conscription being  legalized drawing up of troops into the armed services and then putting these people into harms way by sending them to war zones.  The argument being that it is for the good and service of the country and therefore in your own defence.  Hence a direct contradiction.  “Every standard that they invented for designating a particular harmful act  involuntary, ultimately embodies the kind of communal standards that are, according to their own principles, illegitimate  justifications for interference with individual liberty.”  (Smiley).

The concept of democracy and  paternalism in the Western democracies is changing.  The UK is an example where historically a form of benevolent paternalism has been excepted.  i.e. the people vote for their leaders, and they are provided with delegated responsibility, governed by Parliament, to make decisions on behalf of the electorate.  This is now changing, and recent history has illustrated the contempt by senior politicians to the face of the electorate.  In the UK this has also included cases of corruption, where politicians were committing acts of fraud on  expenditure.  The electorate is now demanding more transparency and accountability.  There is now a greater need for inclusion, evidence based reasoning and consultation with the electorate.  The conservative leader James Cameron stated that he will move the party to this model.  It is victorious and coming UK general election.

The UK also as a debate brewing over the health care decision-making, and the acts of paternalism over the people.  It has been argued that health care policy and decision making can no longer be left as a bargaining chip between professional, bureaucratic and political interests.  Greater inclusion is now required to incorporate organized groups of health services and representation from citizens.  The actual delivery of healthcare is going to require the development of more of a partnership approach.  A more direct engagement with the patience of service delivery, planning and monitoring.  All of this reflects a renewed interest in the role of citizens and the services that government has provided in the public sector.  This essentially being a loss of public confidence in the national health systems in the UK and the service as a whole.  The people have not seen ample evidence of consultation and information on the NHS reforms, being spearheaded by the UK government.  The general lack of transparency and degradation of services has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction of the health system in the UK.  People have become much more socially aware and knowledgeable about subject matter, making the shortfall to the politicians much more transparent.

The concept of reconciling equality in paternalism and that of democracy is not an easy proposition.  People on both the left and the right believe ultimately the importance of freedom and individual rights.  Those on the left stressed the importance of equality, whilst those of the right believe it is freedom.  The two are however mutually exclusive, and mean different things.  Nietzsche believed in the concept of equality, because he believed that developed herd mentality.  and this pulled  people together.  In contrast those on the  left like  Rousseau and Marx hated inequalities.  They defined freedom as  something positive.  In order to achieve reconciliation that these to be some trade-off between quality of freedom and democracy.  Rousseau and Sartre both  stated the fact that that liberty on its own will not  guarantee the equalities that the human desires.  As such the concept of a modern democracy goes beyond that required by liberalism. ” it is useful, at least for social and intellectual elites (who influence public opinion) and policymakers (who make policies), to understand different forms of equality and their relations to democracy. There are different forms of equality, only some of which are democratic claims or are compatible with democracy”  (LI)

Works Cited

Charlemagne. “The EU’s Greek bailout: just who is in charge?” The Economist (2010).

Colazingari, Silvia. “Corruption in a Paternalistic Democracy:.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 113, No. 3 (1998): 447-470.

Garren, David J. “Paternalism Part 2.” Philosophical Books (2007): 50-59.

He, Baogang. “The democratization of China.” He, Baogang. The democratization of China. New York: T J Press, 1996. 1-240.

Kemerling, Garth. Hobbes’s Leviathan. 27 10 2001. 28 4 2010 <http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3x.htm>.

LI, Bo. “Equality and Democracy.” Perspectives (2000): Vol 1 No 4.

New world encyclopedia. Paternalism. 2010. 28 4 2010 <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/paternalism>.

Smiley, Marion. “Paternalism and democracy .” The Journal of Value Inquiry (1989): 299-318.

US Legal. Invasion of Privacy Law & Legal Definition. 2010. 24 4 2010 <http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/>.