Pokie in the eye for paternalism

A powerful criticism of the intervention in the Northern Territory is that it withholds cash from all Idigenous households, implying they are all incompetent. This is insulting to those families who have been managing their money properly and looking after their children in a responsible manner, and it may well be counterproductive.

Yet there are undoubtedly some people who really are incompetent and irresponsible. For them, it may be that paternalistic interventions such as these represent the best hope.

This leaves us with a problem. When it comes to social policy, it seems one size does not fit all. Most of us can probably be left to manage our own affairs, but some have to be shepherded to prevent them from drifting into chaos and disaster.

So how are we to distinguish those who are competent and responsible enough to be left alone to run their own lives from those who are not? Is it right to treat these two groups differently, interfering with some citizens while leaving others alone?

And if this is not right, how are we to avoid a situation where we all end up suffocated by the paternal embrace of a government that believes it has a duty to protect us from ourselves?