I want to rail on this, but I can't.

I've been sitting on an article in the NYT for a few days, trying to figure out what to do with it (I know Stalin, if it comes from the NYT, the obvious answer is to "chuck it"). It's an article on people voluntarily giving the State control over their actions.

The example given is gambling addicts giving the State the right to arrest them and confiscate their winnings if they step into a casino. You sign up, go on a list, and bingo (HA) if you're caught in a casino its off to the pokey.

The article starts by saying that Libertarians are against this and worried about it.

Plenty, say libertarian critics. To begin with, they don’t like soft paternalism when it involves the state’s coercive power; they are much happier with private self-binding schemes, like alcoholism clinics, Christmas savings clubs and Weight Watchers. They also worry that soft paternalism can be a slippery slope to the harder variety, as when campaigns to discourage smoking give way to “sin taxes” and outright bans. But some libertarians have deeper misgivings. What bothers them is the way soft paternalism relies for its justification on the notion that each of us contains multiple selves — and that one of those selves is worth more than the others.

Then it gets real philosophical describing the conflict between your current self and your future self (where's my DeLorean?).

Anyway, I'm not to bugged by this, its just too periphery for me. There's a distinct difference between having your Civil Liberties taken away and voluntarily giving them up (I would also cry foul if someone could place on the list). I understand the slope that leads to the State saying, "Hey, lots of people are giving up right "X," clearly no one needs it, lets take it from all." But I can't run around in a tizzy over every slippery slope. I also get that I'm on the hook as a taxpayer to try, jail, and deal with someone on the list. But in the end, my take is if that's what someone feels they have to do, OK. I do have a question about changing your mind. The article does not mention if theres a way to get off the list, for example, but I am much more comfortable with the idea if you can change your mind. Sort of a, "I think I'll lose my house if I don't get this gambling under control, and until I do, I need a powerful disincentive. When I get a grip, I want off the list." The rugged individualist in me doesn't understand, and surely there's some way to accomplish the same end that doesn't involve the State, but whatever.

Also sad that the first person to sign up for the list in Michigan wound up in a casino, lost his winnings ($1,223! What problem?), and is on probation for a year.

Not the most important article, but I thought it was interesting.