Paternalism, in the usage of The Bob Zadek Show, names the charge that government restricts an individual’s choices on the premise that officials know better than the individual what is good for him. The show’s host, Bob Zadek, and his guests apply the term across drug policy, taxation, licensing, and education, treating it as the common root of policies they oppose.
Drug prohibition and the “drug of power”
In a 2009 episode on drug legalization, Bob Zadek framed the case for legalization around individual autonomy and criticized government paternalism, citing New York’s trans fat ban as an example Legalize drugs. (2009). He described legalization as neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue but a libertarian one, and stated three principles: that people are smart, that politicians crave power, and that individuals matter. He told listeners that the drug to be avoided is not one people may take into their body but the intoxicating drug of power, and said the show was about doing away with that drug of power and replacing it with far more benign drugs that alter one’s mood. The episode also raised California’s potential to lead the nation in reversing drug prohibition, and named Tom Ammiano and Michael Bloomberg among its topics.
Taxation, licensing, and the freedom index
A 2013 episode with Travis Brown treated paternalism as one component of an annual study of economic freedom. Zadek described the study as considering factors beyond taxation, including paternalism, free choice, and the licensing of occupations, and reported its overall freedom ranking: the three lowest states were California at 48, New Jersey at 49, and New York at 50, while the top three were New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Indiana Where is Everyone Going? (2013). He asked what the top three had in common and what the bottom three had in common. The same episode discussed states considering replacing an income tax with a sales or consumption tax; Zadek said he loved the idea because a consumption tax is built into the price of a product and a buyer who does not like the combined price simply does not buy it, whereas being driven to earn less because he could not keep enough of what he earned would deny him his soul. Brown argued that taxing personal income taxes the most mobile resource and lessens the ability to save, consume, or invest.
In a 2022 episode, William Ruger described how the freedom index weights variables. He said the index assigns weights according to the value of freedom affected by a particular policy to those whose freedoms are at stake, using a dollar estimate of the benefits of a shift in a pro-freedom direction, and that variables related to basic constitutional rights get a boost Ranking Freedom in the 50 States (2022). He gave the breakdown: fiscal policy about 30 percent, with the remaining 70 percent divided into roughly 33 percent for personal freedom and 35 percent for regulatory policy. He listed variables including government employment, raw milk sales, gun laws, cigarette bans, and occupational licensing. The episode’s segment heading names “freedom from paternalism” as the category covering personal freedom.
School choice and the competence of parents
Two 2022 episodes on school choice give paternalism its most extended treatment. In one, Zadek described the argument that lower-income people are not engaged enough or competent enough to choose their children’s school, calling it patronizing Students, Not Systems (2022). Corey DeAngelis called it the most paternalistic argument against school choice and said it is the heart of the other side’s case, since advantaged families already have school choice through neighborhood selection or paying for private school out of pocket. He argued that low-income families have better information about their own child’s needs than bureaucrats hundreds of miles away, that they have stronger incentives to get the decision right, and that one-size-fits-all systems cannot meet unique needs. He compared choosing a school to choosing a doctor, a mechanic, or a dentist, and asked whether the same critics would take away food stamps, Pell grants, or the GI Bill. Zadek asked why, if low-income parents lack competence to choose a school, they are allowed to have children at all, and why they are empowered to decide what to eat, where to live, and what healthcare to seek. DeAngelis said the logic is inconsistent because the same people are trusted at the ballot box, and that the root of the arguments is power dynamics and protecting a monopoly.
In the other episode, Zadek put the same question to Matt Beienburg, asking to what extent the argument was made that parents who lack an upper-middle-class or even middle-class education are not competent to decide their children’s education and need the paternalistic hand of government Arizona Chooses Students Over Systems - Matt Beienburg (2022). Beienburg said the premise that parents cannot or should not be trusted is always implicit in the logic from the left and the teachers’ unions, and that it rests on an obsession with certification and a stamp of approval from experts. He cited academic literature finding that teachers getting master’s degrees does not improve the education kids get, and said opposition to ESAs and school choice is built on mistrust and sometimes contempt for parents. He described politicians who attended private school or send their children to private school while telling low-income or minority families they are not responsible enough to wield that right, calling it hypocrisy. Zadek added that the same pressure groups do not suggest parents should be barred from deciding what food their children eat, what medicines they take, what healthcare they get, what clothes they wear, what time they go to bed, or what activities they engage in, and that only the educational decision is singled out. Beienburg described parents organizing through groups including Moms for Liberty and Parents Know Best in Arizona, and said there are more parents than teachers’ union members.
Across episodes
The topic recurs from 2009 to 2022, but the excerpts show no development in the argument: the same charge — that restrictions rest on a premise of official superior knowledge — is leveled at drug prohibition by Zadek, at taxation and licensing through the freedom index by Zadek and Ruger, and at school choice restrictions by Zadek, DeAngelis, and Beienburg. What changes is only the policy domain, with the school choice episodes of August 2022 giving the theme its fullest statement.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not define paternalism formally, nor do they present any defense of paternalistic policy in the speakers’ own voices beyond reported arguments. They do not state the name of any bill, the holding of any case, or the constitutional provision at issue. Several excerpts break off mid-sentence or at a segment heading, and the 2009 and 2013 episodes supply only partial discussion of the topic.