Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

When Should We, Righteously, Ban Things And When Not?

A new paper at the Institute for Economic Affairs on this subject. When is it righteous and just in a liberal society to ban something, when isn’t it?

To Ban Or Not To Ban.

A ban on opening a new supermarket is evidence that people want a new supermarket, for if they did not there would be no need for a ban. The same is true of chlorinated chicken, gambling machines and many other products and activities that we are told need to be banned or restricted.

It is true that government should stop people doing certain things. It is also true that government should not impose restrictions upon other activities. In the classical liberal view, restrictions can only be justified when there is harm to third parties. If there is no third-party harm, then the restriction on liberty is mere paternalism or protectionism.

This paper presents a clear and precise set of rules for deciding whether a curtailment of liberty is legitimate or not. The argument is illustrated through a series of current examples, including climate change, gambling, high street retail, obesity and the green belt.

One of the big surprises to some will be that liberal and progressive are not synonyms.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

In the U.S. the term “liberal” became tarnished in the 60s/70s as someone too open minded & naïve – soft on crime, etc. Hence, those on the Left re-branded themselves as Progressives, clever trick that, who doesn’t support progress? Dennis Prager makes a point frequently to distinguish between Liberals and Leftists – unfortunately we have very few Liberals anymore and the Progs are almost all Leftists – no interest in individual liberty except in a few areas and very, very interested in control of all areas of your life.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x