A while back, I posted about Libertarian Paternalism, as espoused by Cass Sunstein, professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School.
Well, there’s a bit of a debate going on, for anyone who’s interested in this kind of thing. (Am I the only one?)
First, Becker and Posner (an economist and a judge, in short) blog their take on the idea. (Link and Link)
Now, Sunstein himself blogs a response to them. (Link)
Guess what. I haven’t read any of it yet.
But I will soon, because not only do I want to know the smartest responses to this particular debate, but I also love the idea that the top thinkers and primary sources are putting it out there in blogs. No longer is the interested layman out of the loop. In a way that’s never happened before, scientists, lawyers, and other gurus are letting us peek through the keyhole.
[As it happens, the electronic age may not be better for everyone. As scientists share their thoughts through vapor-like email (rather than physical letters), the Science Historians of the future may have fewer and fewer sources to pull from. (Link)]
On the original post, I decided not to comment because, while I generally respect Cass Sunstein, I think that with this point he’s letting his heart get in the way of his head. Using your definition from the previous post (you did a good job summarizing): “I think that the shortest way to say it is that the Libertarian Paternalist looks at how people make decisions, and uses that knowledge to leverage them into making ones that are in their best interest.”
As soon as you say “in their best interest” you have just left the land of libertarianism and gone into something else. Someplace where people other than the individual get to decide what’s in their best interest.
One of the weird, and not altogether likeable, things about libertarianism is that it’s pretty well defined. There just aren’t many shades of grey. Something is either libertarian, or it isn’t. People can compromise, but the idealogy can’t. I think that’s partly why the Libertarian party is doomed as a political force; they’re just not able to compromise, or else they wouldn’t be libertarians.
What Professor Sunstein is proposing is to Libertarianism what Socialism is to Communism: Not the same thing. Which is why Posner & Becker so clearly think the name, and the underlying idea, are contradictions.
Don’t get me wrong: I like the idea of leaving the choice on the table much better than I like taking the choice off the table. But it’s less of a choice when you put your finger on the scale, which is what seems to be proposed. The problem (to the libertarian) isn’t the weight of the finger, it’s that you think you’re smart enough to be putting your finger there in the first place.
I have a pretty strong libertarian impulse, but then again I have a strong impulse to eat cheesecake for breakfast, too. I resist them both when it makes sense to do so, given context. What Professor Sunstein proposes is a fine idea, but has very little to do with libertarianism. In fact, I’d say the choice of name is going to hurt him with pretty much every possible constituency: Libertarians will be insulted by the compromise, non-libertarians will be put off by the association with the Libertarian / NORML crowd, and anyone else tempted to give the idea much thought will be put off by the oxymoron.
Kevin
It’s true that this is a departure from Libertarianism. I’m sure that he chose the name in order to get some press, and to get people talking about the idea.
Still, I think that he’d argue that most of what he’s saying is palatable as a compromise for most Libertarians. They may hate the name, but agree that the ideas are ok as a substitute for hard-core Libertarianism. Libertarianism may be black and white, but he’s betting that the majority of people who call themselves that are willing to waver on some of the points.
And I do think it has some Libertarian chops. I mean, lots of things aren’t pure, but still get to claim roots in something else.
As far as having a finger on the scale, I think that at least in some limited cases, the point is that there’s often a finger there, whether we plan it or not. In those cases, at least, government may as well make a decision, rather than toss a coin.
If the govt. gives someone a choice between doing X or Y, then it must first decide what the default will be if the person elects not to make a choice. If the default is X, then you’re helping people pick X. If you default Y, then you’re helping them pick Y. With some issues you can’t NOT put your finger on the scale.