I am definitely assuming that interventions that we have stated are based on arguments of time inconsistency are invalid.

Sure, we could assume other things (eg stupidity), and if they want to come out with those justifications for policy, I’ll look at them on those grounds 😉

Sure, but you’re going a lot further than that. For example, you implicitly assume that interventions are based on time inconsistency arguments and are otherwise invalid. I’m sure the first of those isn’t true and many people would question the second.

That makes sense to me – if we are offering a costless commitment device and it isn’t taken up, time inconsistency doesn’t hold water.

if we offer this pill and no-one uses it, then this reveals that the time inconsistency justification we’ve used for our paternalistic policies does not hold any water – suggesting that all these government regulations to control our consumption of alcohol are actually just harmful to the individual.

Tbh, I prefer my mechanisms for commitment in any case:

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/08/11/internalities-mechanisms-and-booze/

Ahh I see – that probably was libertarian moralising, as I was running low on space and wanted to say something punchy.

I can’t see the article atm – what did I say?

Sorry, I mean the final sentence of your Idealog article. 

“Your last sentence clearly implies a libertarian view of social welfare.”

Isn’t my last sentence “This is appropriate no matter where I am on the political spectrum” …

If it is the middle sentence then I disagree.  Paternalistic interventions have to be justified in a way where the benefits of intervention exceed the costs – that is a practical analytical statement, not a political one as I am not working on quantifying or classifying what the costs and benefits are!

Link still works for me. Oddly, I sent the TVHE address to someone yesterday and they said they couldn’t access the site.