Recent defenders of state paternalism argue that traditional objections fail to identify anything distinctively problematic about it that don't also pertain to other state activities these objectors would find acceptable. Bill Glod outlines these observations.
While contemporary defenders of state paternalism offer some formidable cases for it, Bill Glod suggests in this essay how liberals and libertarians can offer powerful responses.
While libertarians should reject state paternalism, what should we do about those who are alleged to lack the competence to make free choices?
Bill Glod concludes the essay series on paternalism by discussing why opposition to it matters, including but not limited to: principled respect for individual freedom, maximal opportunities for experiments in living, and prevention of privacy violations.