Christopher Snowdon // 27 February 2025

The report The People vs. Paternalism examines why grassroots opposition to government paternalism is weak and how it could be strengthened. Drawing on Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action, it argues that consumers face a free-rider problem, making them less likely to mobilise against restrictive policies on drinking, vaping, gambling, and other lifestyle choices.

The report highlights how paternalistic advocacy groups overcome these barriers through government funding and selective incentives for supporters. By contrast, consumer-led opposition remains disorganised and underfunded.

Key findings of the report include:

• Paternalistic policies persist because consumers, as a large and dispersed group, struggle to organise collective opposition.
• Public health activists frame debates as “industry vs. public health,” sidelining consumer sovereignty and leveraging anti-capitalist sentiment.
• Successful advocacy groups rely on selective incentives, such as membership perks, to encourage participation.
• Current consumer organisations, such as CAMRA and the AA, provide useful models for grassroots movements by combining activism with tangible benefits.
• A viable opposition to paternalism would require membership-based organisations offering financial incentives (e.g., discounts for vapers, drinkers, or gamblers) to attract supporters.
• Such groups must remain independent from industry funding to avoid accusations of being corporate front groups.

The report concludes that while creating a consumer-led movement against paternalism is challenging, it is achievable through strategic use of selective incentives, financial self-sufficiency, and a clear pro-liberty stance.