How should anti-paternalists deal with policies that seem to be simultaneously reasonable and paternalistic? In the literature, anti-paternalists have sought to show that many policies that prevent people from harming themselves can be justified without appeal to the good accruing to the people interfered with; that is, without appeal to paternalistic reasons. However, while perhaps identifying sufficient non-paternalistic reasons for supporting these policies under realistic circumstances, anti-paternalists often fail, I argue, to identify satisfactory reasons that adequately reflect our underlying concerns pertaining to such policies. Included in those concerns are arguably the interests and well-being of the people whose choices are restricted by the policy in question. In this way, this article reveals that the strategy of reconciling anti-paternalism with seemingly paternalistic policies is beset by serious problems.

中文翻译：

---

论反家长式的和解工程

反家长主义者应该如何处理看似合理又家长式的政策？在文献中，反家长主义者试图表明，许多防止人们伤害自己的政策是合理的，而无需诉诸于受干扰者的利益。也就是说，不诉诸家长式的理由。然而，我认为，尽管在现实情况下可能会找到足够的非家长式支持这些政策的理由，但我认为，反家长式主义者往往无法确定满意的充分反映我们对此类政策的潜在担忧的原因。可以说，这些担忧中包括选择受到相关政策限制的人们的利益和福祉。通过这种方式，本文揭示了调和反家长式政策与看似家长式政策的策略受到严重问题的困扰。