Between Tutelage and Loss of Integrity?

Rödgröna föraktar folket som ’slarvar bort’ sin lön: "Skälet till att vänsterblocket kunnat vinna val är att de lyckats dölja dessa värderingar. De ser ner på människorna. De anser inte medborgarna kapabla att bestämma över sin egen lön. De Rödgröna vill agera förmyndare åt svenska folket."

I have myself argued that the Social Democracy in Sweden uses "förmynderi" or tutelage as a principle for governing. I believe what irritated me was that they could not allow theoretically talented students to move faster in school when they could let athletes do this. The good aspect of tutelage is of course that in the past the state could build up knowledge that could benefit the citizen. Take for example smoking that is bad for you, many would argue today, but the problems come when you extend this to for example fatness that increases the taxburden for people that are not fat.

However, what seems to have changed the last 40 years is that civic society, and thus the traditional right of center crowd, have organized itself in knowledgebased units that potentially also set up rules for more economical living. So called "system rules" are imposed on people that in this way limit their freedom voluntarily for the good of the group and of society. A group of people can for example agree on living according to the latest in optimal health promotion. Since this form of tutelage is voluntary it should be preferable to that levied by the state, since it comes with other potential benefits like access to hot information.

The question is when a "system" begin to argue that we cost society less and therefore we want a lower tax rate. This is an delicate issue since it collides with the concept of solidarity.

Another important issue is that of a potential downside of system membership--loss of integrity. We can see this in the total lack of interest from the Alliansen for a discussion of the integrity concept at large. Involuntary loss of integrity to the state is what is called "Big Brother" hood. It is then assumed that the state can use gathered information about you in a more evil way.

The important question becomes where is the state positioned in the fauna of systems out there in terms of personal security?