TALA for the Long Run
Innocent so as to not become guilty
A thought experiment—suppose we gave a test to all children to determine their IQ and personality type including identifying any problematic extremes. For those scoring high in at-risk categories (e.g., low IQ or extreme neurotic tendencies or psychotic levels) we isolate them going forward in terms of their exposure to learning as well as monitor them.
For some even teaching reading might be restricted so as to ensure better control over their intellectual inputs. So there would be a combination approach whereby we effectively put up guardrails and channel these people into successful pathways as well as keep tabs on what they are up to so as to head off problems at the pass.
This would be a sort of future crimes prevention, à la Minority Report, without the mystical clairvoyance. It would also be a method of reducing future delinquencies and shortcomings which are not necessarily criminal such as bad work ethics or substance abuse or problem gambling. Heck, it could even be helpful in steering them away from responsibilities they might not handle "appropriately" like homeownership—can't have them bringing down the neighborhood with a bad yard.
Quite obviously, it damn sure better be obvious to you, this is beyond ridiculous. It is beyond technocratic and elitist hubris. It is a disgusting thought experiment not just doomed to failure but fatally flawed ethically. A moral disaster on top of a practical impossibility.
And yet . . .
And yet we engage in a crude version of this time and again. Instead of Treating Adults Like Adults (TALA), we presume the ability (ethical right), capability (practical competence), and desirability to monitor, restrict, and force people into and away from their own choices. Because of FOOL and FOOM (Fear Of Others Liberty | Mistakes), we set aside objections in a delusional quest to live others' lives for them.
Obviously people need help. All people do. And they need it differently in all ways imaginable. We are a social creature not for choice but for necessity. But this need alone does not imply forceful imposition—neither morally nor pragmatically.
To truly help people we need to help them on their terms meeting them where they are. And help must be desired to be effective. We must reserve force for the absolute extremes, which would generally be when others are being unrightfully harmed.
I admit that last sentence is doing a lot of work. It would take a long essay to fully sketch that out. The governing principle is a framework of negative rights—the freedom of interference from others including and especially the state.
The choices of consenting adults is not the domain for which force should be employed even if we think we know better. Criminal offenses, tortious transgressions, and negligent behavior harming third parties are where we should restrict our use of force. And even then, the punished deserve dignity.
The point I would like to make here is eluded to in the post's title. It is that while TALA might fail in at least the narrowest sense in the short run, the long run benefit vastly outweighs any potential short run cost. Set aside the moral problems and focus just on the logistics and mechanics of pulling this off.
A docile people are an unproductive people—especially in the long run. Stalin's factories were productive. But they were not responsive to even short-term desires, and they were miserable at long-term innovation.
We know these lessons. We’ve learned them again and again. And yet . . .
We fear the neighbors will make bad choices; so we restrict those choices. Then technology passes the zoning code by, and we are left with inferior construction. Or the cost gradually and then greatly exceeds the benefit, and we have unaffordable housing from artificially excessive scarcity. Examples:
Small things like superior windows that historic codes don’t allow
Bigger things like density that zoning codes won’t allow1
“Bad” lending/borrowing presumptively made illegal shutting out a class of buyers
Cities that won’t build; places that cannot develop
We fear misuse of chemical substances; so we violently and unevenly enforce prohibitions. Then people look for alternatives to meet desires and needs, and bad actors step into the breach. Or bad norms are developed so that adults do not grow up equipped to handle the real world with responsibility. Or we choose to maximize a permission-based system, and the revenge of Bastiat’s seen/not seen reeks devastation. Examples:
Pain left untreated
Everything from binge drinking in college to: “Marijuana is legal and sometimes medicine?!? Therefore, it must be harmless to my health and my productive life.”
The FDA’s silent graveyard
We fear immigration will bring negative change; so we minimize all opportunities for it. Then people find their way here through other means, and face risks in transit and undue hardship in residence. Or as people do not find their way here, connections are not made, and Bastiat’s lesson is again felt but not learned. Examples:
Families broken apart
Immigrant exploitation
Immigrant inability to (legally) work causing greater need for/strain on government resources
A smaller, poorer economy for all
We fear the wrong things being heard; so we limit what can be said and to whom it can be expressed. Then people hear and believe what they suppose from limited resources or bad, unrefuted sources, and misinformation and misunderstanding spreads. Or people distrust the censors, and throw the knowledge baby out with the noise bathwater. Examples:
Smallish things like financial and legal advice being artificially scarce
Big things like bigotry being pushed underground rather than openly and peaceably refuted
Vaccine confusion and extreme distrust
A teeter-totter battleground for who will control the microphone and the message as well as the centers of influence like higher education
Yes, “with great power comes great responsibility”. The corollaries are “with great and true responsibility comes great opportunity” and “with both great responsibility and opportunity comes great flourishing”.
Stripping adults of responsibility and opportunity is no way to better their lives and a certain way to limit all of our own.
Not to mention styles. Failed economic systems are forced to rationalize their way to stylistic choices. “We’ve discovered the best building design so no need to waste resources considering new ones”.