An interesting piece in the NY Times about ‘soft’ paternalism. The idea is a simple one. Lets say you have a gambling problem. In one of your more lucid moments you decide to sign a self limiting ordnance, that says simply if you enter another casino you will be arrested and any winnings you might be fortunate enough to accrue be confiscated by the state. The self is fluid as any postmodernist will tell you. But should we be allowing one self to bind the behaviour of another self, especially if this involves state sanction.
Ofcourse it a rather fanciful piece, given English law enforcement can’t even make a fist of enforcing the criminal law, but very interesting in the questions it throws up about our ever changing selves and the way in which we manage the the relationship between who we are and who we want to be.
