“Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men, governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity? But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:223
An article in last week’s UK Economist offers a third way between the nanny state and Mill’s utilitarian and liberal utopia.
This third way? Soft paternalism.
The idea behind soft paternalism differs from socialism in the sense that socialism dictates what you should do with your money. You shall participate in a health care system. You shall participate in a pension program. You shall pay a tax on cigarettes, beer, etc.
Soft paternalism slightly modifies this, from a list of demands to a list of defaults.
Having documented people’s inadequacies, the behaviouralists now want to save them. The iconoclasts are becoming paternalists?but of a distinctive kind. Two of them, Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, describe their approach as “libertarian paternalism”, which, they insist, is not an oxymoron. Their critics, such as Edward Glaeser, of Harvard University, call it “soft paternalism”. Whatever the label, their approach is cannier and stealthier than the heavy-handed paternalism liberals reject. Their aim is not the “nanny state”, a scold and killjoy forcing its charges to eat their vegetables and take their medicine. Instead they offer a vision of what you might call the “avuncular state”, worldly-wise, offering a nudge in the right direction, perhaps pulling strings on your behalf without your even noticing.
Uncle Sam is Your Friend
a ·vun ·cu ·lar (ae-vung’kye-ler) adj. 1. Of or having to do with an uncle. 2. Regarded as characteristic of an uncle, especially in benevolence or tolerance.
In its essence, here’s the theory:
Human beings are autonomous creatures by design, often seeking to do what is pleasurable before they seek to do what is best. There are two versions of our psyche at play; one with long-term objectives in view, the other with short-term considerations at heart.
Hard paternalism takes the long-terms views of an elite and imposes them upon others. Classical liberalism makes the individual responsible for all their actions, some of which have consequences on others. Soft paternalism seeks to arrive at a “default condition” of society that individuals can choose to “opt-out”, the gamble being that individuals being the short-sighted folks we are will mostly choose to leave well enough alone — which is in our best interests according to the government.
The problems with such a system?
Mill was a libertarian par excellence; a product of the Age of Reason at its twilight. His flavor of libertarianism (utilitarianism) is one of many individualist-centered political philosophies, and several might argue one of the weakest:
(1) Mill’s utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number)
(2) Ayn Rand’s objectivism (self-preservation to modify non-aggression)
(3) Anarcho-capitalism (the free market provides all the social construct you’ll need)
(4) Anarchism (who needs government?)
(5) Hobbesian libertarianism (the state grows proportionate to threat; decreases to peace)
(6) Thomistic libertarianism (culture as the coercive force in society)
One item the article makes plainly clear is that individuals are loathe to surrender their individualism. Hard paternalism pulls no punches, forcing one to surrender choices to the nanny state. But soft paternalism does no such thing. Yes, you are boxed in to default settings, but the choice to withdraw is always available.
Utilitarianism is the forefather of modern British classical liberalism, and therefore seen as the logical defender of liberalism per se. However, I would like to offer an alternative critique.
One example the UK Economist offers as a contrast between hard and soft paternalism is the campaign against smoking. Smoking is bad for you, it has a negative impact on health, it increases the cost of medical care, and yet people still smoke.
Hard paternalists would simply ban smoking, but that would infringe upon the right of the individual to choose whether or not to smoke. Rather than impose sweeping bans or disincentives (sin taxes for example) on smoking, soft paternalists offer a “cigarette license” as an abstract example. Pay $5,000 a year, and you get 2,500 cigarette packs tax-free. All others pay a tax as a “societal default” to discourage smoking overall. Another alternative is putting them onto vaping, this can lead them away from tobacco and they can use a vape for something less potent and harmful. Those who are interested can learn more over at ojivape.com. Furthermore, some people want to get more enjoyment out of their vaping so that they don’t deter back to smoking. If someone was a big smoker before it would not make any sense to reduce them dramatically down to limited to no smoking, therefore, using vaping mods that have things like temperature control, waterproof and shockproof features that could be a good method for someone who is trying to quit.
Yet another example is in Missouri. Compulsive gamblers, when they recognize they have a problem, can literally ban themselves from the riverboat casinos located in state. If caught entering one though, they face stiff fines and penalties.
Slip Slidin’ Away…
So what’s the problem with this? The distinction between “default” and “mandate” for starters. The UK Economist article offers this brief critique:
Should liberals object to schemes of this kind? Perhaps not. By helping people to make forward-looking decisions for themselves that they cannot easily renege on later, they enlarge their freedom, making it possible for them to do things they otherwise could not do. Giving Ulysses the rope with which to lash himself to the mast adds to his choices.
But Glen Whitman, of California State University, has doubts. In an engaging tract for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, he wonders why governments should always favour the long-sighted self over its near-sighted alter ego. The immediate pleasures of gambling, drinking and idleness are real; so too are the costs of suppressing them. “In contrast to the obese and the profligate, whose short-run selves constantly trump their long-run selves, we might point to the misers [and] workaholics for whom the reverse appears to be true,” he writes.
Not only is the path from “default recommendations” a slippery one – for instance, making the choice to “opt out” so difficult, no one tries – there is no reason to believe our long-term decisions trump our short term decisions.
Example #1: Studies show eating meat causes colon cancer. As an individual who enjoys eating steaks, should I be forced to eat nothing but vegetables and live to be 90 when I can eat steak and live to be 60?
Example #2: In a 2001 study funded by Philip Morris, smoking was found to be beneficial to the Czech economy to the tune of $500mil (2001 USD). Even if it is to the detriment of our health, can government mandate choices beneficial to the nation?
What’s more, certain choices the government may choose on our behalf as “default” may or may not be good for the free market overall. Case in point would be hybrid cars. Let’s argue the government mandated all Americans to own, or in the soft paternalistic world offered tax incentives to purchase, hybrid vehicles and dispose of their gasoline engines. What incentive then would there be for hydrogen cell cars that do not receive tax incentives? Ethanol powered cars? Solar-electric cars? Cars that partially run off of the act of braking your vehicle?
None of those inventions would be moved forward, because government would not allow them to be heard. Tax incentives would require a literal Act of Congress to mandate or inspire change.
The Role of Government
Of course, the real challenge classical liberalism presents to the idea of soft paternalism isn’t in process. Classical liberals take a step out of the box and rightly should ask whether the question of the nanny state (or avancular state) should be raised at all?
Again, what is the proper role of government?
“Almighty God that created the mind free,” wrote Jefferson. True, he was speaking of religous freedom. Would a soft paternalist deem it beneficial to offer the “default” religion of society to Anglicanism? Certainly they did during the 1770’s. Opting out was an option, but not without considerable scorn from both society’s Anglicans and the government.
Another consideration would be the American experiment with Prohibition. During the 1890’s, the legions of do-gooders crusading against the drink used every soft paternalistic weapon at their disposal, and still they could not eradicate a perceived social ill. In the end, proponents took the slippery slope to a failed constitutional amendment banning alcoholic drinks in the United States – an experiment doomed to failure for precisely the same tension as described before; long term benefits vs. short term wants.
Government should be informative, and if it feels so encumbered notifiy citizens of potential risks. In dire cases where society is at stake, government can certainly proscribe certain acts such as drug use, murder, theft, and war.
But how citizens should live?
Paternalism Incompatible with Representation
Representative democracies work from the bottom up, from the people to the halls of power, and not vice versa. When the order reverses, when those in power dictate to individuals, then the entire object of a republic implodes.
We do not elect masters. We elect representatives of the people. I expect my elected officals to execute the will of the majority who sent them, not to execute power over those whom the serve. If anyone questions whether we are drifting into the latter, simply take a quick look at how elected officals on the whole treat their constituencies — empty promises, scandals, consultants, marketing.
Paternalism in any form must be rejected by a free people if they wish to remain free. Allowing government to condition the body politic is a set up for failure. Is this alarmist? Yes, but not radically so. Individuals and voters should educate and innoculate themselves from any form of social conditioning.
Information is fine, even if it comes from the government. The choices are forever our own.