Gary Becker and Richard Posner offer sensible criticisms of "libertarian paternalism."
I especially like this point made by Becker:
In effect, the libertarian claim is that the "process" of making
choices leads to individuals who are more capable of making good
choices. Strangely perhaps, libertarian paternalists emphasize process
when claiming conflict among multiple selves within a person, but
ignore the classical emphasis on decision-making process that helps
individuals make better choices.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 7 comments }
I believe there CAN be libertarian paternalism: the idea that people must be free even if they don't want to.
Libertarians posit that humans must have every freedom — but there is no real freedom to do something if it does not include the freedom to not do that thing.
Some (many) libertarians have the self righteous urge to liberate people in spite of themselves.
Is that right? Maybe. Is that paternalistic? Yes.
"I believe there CAN be libertarian paternalism: the idea that people must be free even if they don't want to."
That would not be a libertarian position. It doesn't even makse sense. The very idea is contradictory, since nobody is free who is not free to give up that freedom. The libertarian is not overly concerned with individuals who willingly give up there right to choose, but are deeply disturbed by those who willingly give up the right of others to choose.
"Libertarians posit that humans must have every freedom"
No we don't. Again, this is contradictory. The libertarian does not believe that anybody should have the freedom to coerce and constrain the liberty of others, so libertarians certainly do not believe that any human must have "every freedom."
"Some (many) libertarians have the self righteous urge to liberate people in spite of themselves."
Not really. Even Libertarians regularly take decisions where they voluntarily constrain their future freedom. Ever hear of marraige?
All these idiotic misrepresentations of the philosophies of freedom can't be a coincidence. People should be free to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes, so freedom is paternalistic. People WILL make such mistakes, but because there will be freedom to correct them, and problems do have solutions under freedom, freedom is utopian. I have trouble believing that these "misunderstandings" about freedom are innocent. For one thing I think these people are projecting. THEY are paternalistic and utopian in their outlooks, so thats what they see in everyone else. But I don't think its that simple. Some people don't WANT to understand.
I think some people are just horrified at the thought of individual responsibility. They'd rather be told what to do, what to think, and have their own futures secured under the shadow of some sort of paternalistic organization rather than take responsibility for themselves.
The most damning thing about cradle to grave government paternalism is that it keeps people in the cradle until they hit the grave. People who are afraid to leave the cradle will always endorse that sort of system.
Libertarian paternalism?
This is nonsense.
If you look at it from the pov of the "father" the word you are looking for is "charity".
If you look at it from the p.o.v. of the "child" any voluntary delegation of responsability management will do: insurance, letting your employer take care of healthcare, hiring instead of buying a car, submitting to the moral precepts of a church/leader….
Of course if you mean paternalism by (voluntary) civil institutions, that unlike the state do not use force, you've chosen a bad name for it.
Of course if you mean paternalism by (voluntary) civil institutions…
The family itself being (in most cases) a good example of one.
Sorry, i had not read the Becker article!
What these people call "libertarian paternalism" is pure doublespeak. They are talking about regulations and laws! they are basically talking about what everywhere in the world (except for the USA because of your constitution) people call conservative ideas.