Comments on: Is There a Problem With "Libertarian Paternalism"? http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gareth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4981 Gareth Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:14:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4981 Default rules are inevitable, and should not be a problem for libertarians. You have to divide estates on intestacies, defeine what are and are not rights incident to land ownership (subject to changes by restrictive covenants, etc.), employment, sale, etc., etc. If the parties can agree to change the default rule, when they put their mind to it, it is hard to see how liberty or efficiency are compromised. The real Hayek thought that default rules (e.g., intestacy) could justly be used to increase material equality. I don't really see the problem with using them to overcome cognitive quirks. The common law does this in innumerable invisible ways already. Default rules are inevitable, and should not be a problem for libertarians. You have to divide estates on intestacies, defeine what are and are not rights incident to land ownership (subject to changes by restrictive covenants, etc.), employment, sale, etc., etc. If the parties can agree to change the default rule, when they put their mind to it, it is hard to see how liberty or efficiency are compromised.

The real Hayek thought that default rules (e.g., intestacy) could justly be used to increase material equality. I don’t really see the problem with using them to overcome cognitive quirks. The common law does this in innumerable invisible ways already.

]]> By: Gabriel Mihalache http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4980 Gabriel Mihalache Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:02:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4980 I like <a href="http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/03/you_choose.html" rel="nofollow">the way Cafe Hayek covered this</a>. I like the way Cafe Hayek covered this.

]]> By: Robert http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4979 Robert Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:11:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4979 ...a rose by any other name, would still wither and die. …a rose by any other name, would still wither and die.

]]> By: DeadHorseBeater http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4978 DeadHorseBeater Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:48:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4978 I've heard Matt Rabin (a behavioral economist at UC Berkeley) call this kind of thing 'cautious paternalism' instead of libertarian paternalism. I think his phrasing is much more apt. And yes, it does seem a vast improvement to change super oldschool "1 size fits all" to slightly more libertarian "default to bad size 1, you can choose good size 2 by overcoming inertia and exerting choice" to still more libertarian, but more efficiently paternalistic "default to size 2, but you can change to size 1,3, or 4 if you're the non-intertia-ridden self-choosing type" Shades of gray, etc. I’ve heard Matt Rabin (a behavioral economist at UC Berkeley) call this kind of thing ‘cautious paternalism’ instead of libertarian paternalism.
I think his phrasing is much more apt.
And yes, it does seem a vast improvement to

change super oldschool “1 size fits all” to
slightly more libertarian “default to bad size 1, you can choose good size 2 by overcoming inertia and exerting choice”
to still more libertarian, but more efficiently paternalistic “default to size 2, but you can change to size 1,3, or 4 if you’re the non-intertia-ridden self-choosing type”

Shades of gray, etc.

]]> By: Nicholas Weininger http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4977 Nicholas Weininger Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:28:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4977 The funny thing about that NYT article is that it characterizes Thaler and Sunstein as saying gov't or employers should "set boundaries to choice", but then the examples they give are of changing defaults to make generally-good things opt-out and generally-bad things opt-in: defaulting to 401(k) contributions to low-fee index funds, etc. This is a very different thing (though potentially problematic for its own reasons), and I wonder why the article writers didn't cite any examples of outright *restrictions* that T+S want to impose; perhaps they realize that doing so would put T+S in a much less sympathetic light? The funny thing about that NYT article is that it characterizes Thaler and Sunstein as saying gov’t or employers should “set boundaries to choice”, but then the examples they give are of changing defaults to make generally-good things opt-out and generally-bad things opt-in: defaulting to 401(k) contributions to low-fee index funds, etc. This is a very different thing (though potentially problematic for its own reasons), and I wonder why the article writers didn’t cite any examples of outright *restrictions* that T+S want to impose; perhaps they realize that doing so would put T+S in a much less sympathetic light?

]]> By: DeadHorseBeater http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4976 DeadHorseBeater Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:59:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4976 I'm sure it's been said before by someone else (perhaps the Public Choice folks) in a more eloquent manner, but it has always seemed that there is a nearly irreconciliable conflict between democracy and various sorts of paternalism. Suppose people are wise (well-informed, self-disciplined, rational) enough to find out which politician best represents their long term interests. (Or at least representative democracy is the least-bad system.) How is it that they are not wise enough to directly manage their own lives, instead of delegating that authority? (Or at least self-ruling liberty is the least-bad system.) I suppose one could argue that if I am rationally ignorant or know that I have a self-control problem, I could benefit by delegating some of the power to rule me to a specialist (aka financial planner) or disciplinarian (personal trainer, private legal system such as rabbinic law). But it would seem that all of us have different weaknesses in this way, and so would be best served by all personally selecting our 'life coach' to suit our particular needs. Having 51% decide on the life coaches for a 100% of the population seems distinctly suboptimal. BTW, love the blog, Will. Happy Easter. I’m sure it’s been said before by someone else (perhaps the Public Choice folks) in a more eloquent manner, but it has always seemed that there is a nearly irreconciliable conflict between democracy and various sorts of paternalism.

Suppose people are wise (well-informed, self-disciplined, rational) enough to find out which politician best represents their long term interests. (Or at least representative democracy is the least-bad system.)

How is it that they are not wise enough to directly manage their own lives, instead of delegating that authority? (Or at least self-ruling liberty is the least-bad system.)

I suppose one could argue that if I am rationally ignorant or know that I have a self-control problem, I could benefit by delegating some of the power to rule me to a specialist (aka financial planner) or disciplinarian (personal trainer, private legal system such as rabbinic law).

But it would seem that all of us have different weaknesses in this way, and so would be best served by all personally selecting our ‘life coach’ to suit our particular needs. Having 51% decide on the life coaches for a 100% of the population seems distinctly suboptimal.

BTW, love the blog, Will. Happy Easter.

]]> By: DeadHorseBeater http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4970 DeadHorseBeater Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4970 I'm sure it's been said before by someone else (perhaps the Public Choice folks) in a more eloquent manner, but it has always seemed that there is a nearly irreconciliable conflict between democracy and various sorts of paternalism. Suppose people are wise (well-informed, self-disciplined, rational) enough to find out which politician best represents their long term interests. (Or at least representative democracy is the least-bad system.) How is it that they are not wise enough to directly manage their own lives, instead of delegating that authority? (Or at least self-ruling liberty is the least-bad system.) I suppose one could argue that if I am rationally ignorant or know that I have a self-control problem, I could benefit by delegating some of the power to rule me to a specialist (aka financial planner) or disciplinarian (personal trainer, private legal system such as rabbinic law). But it would seem that all of us have different weaknesses in this way, and so would be best served by all personally selecting our 'life coach' to suit our particular needs. Having 51% decide on the life coaches for a 100% of the population seems distinctly suboptimal. BTW, love the blog, Will. Happy Easter. I’m sure it’s been said before by someone else (perhaps the Public Choice folks) in a more eloquent manner, but it has always seemed that there is a nearly irreconciliable conflict between democracy and various sorts of paternalism.

Suppose people are wise (well-informed, self-disciplined, rational) enough to find out which politician best represents their long term interests. (Or at least representative democracy is the least-bad system.)

How is it that they are not wise enough to directly manage their own lives, instead of delegating that authority? (Or at least self-ruling liberty is the least-bad system.)

I suppose one could argue that if I am rationally ignorant or know that I have a self-control problem, I could benefit by delegating some of the power to rule me to a specialist (aka financial planner) or disciplinarian (personal trainer, private legal system such as rabbinic law).

But it would seem that all of us have different weaknesses in this way, and so would be best served by all personally selecting our ‘life coach’ to suit our particular needs. Having 51% decide on the life coaches for a 100% of the population seems distinctly suboptimal.

BTW, love the blog, Will. Happy Easter.

]]> By: Nicholas Weininger http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4971 Nicholas Weininger Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4971 The funny thing about that NYT article is that it characterizes Thaler and Sunstein as saying gov't or employers should "set boundaries to choice", but then the examples they give are of changing defaults to make generally-good things opt-out and generally-bad things opt-in: defaulting to 401(k) contributions to low-fee index funds, etc. This is a very different thing (though potentially problematic for its own reasons), and I wonder why the article writers didn't cite any examples of outright *restrictions* that T+S want to impose; perhaps they realize that doing so would put T+S in a much less sympathetic light? The funny thing about that NYT article is that it characterizes Thaler and Sunstein as saying gov’t or employers should “set boundaries to choice”, but then the examples they give are of changing defaults to make generally-good things opt-out and generally-bad things opt-in: defaulting to 401(k) contributions to low-fee index funds, etc. This is a very different thing (though potentially problematic for its own reasons), and I wonder why the article writers didn’t cite any examples of outright *restrictions* that T+S want to impose; perhaps they realize that doing so would put T+S in a much less sympathetic light?

]]> By: DeadHorseBeater http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4972 DeadHorseBeater Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4972 I've heard Matt Rabin (a behavioral economist at UC Berkeley) call this kind of thing 'cautious paternalism' instead of libertarian paternalism. I think his phrasing is much more apt. And yes, it does seem a vast improvement to change super oldschool "1 size fits all" to slightly more libertarian "default to bad size 1, you can choose good size 2 by overcoming inertia and exerting choice" to still more libertarian, but more efficiently paternalistic "default to size 2, but you can change to size 1,3, or 4 if you're the non-intertia-ridden self-choosing type" Shades of gray, etc. I’ve heard Matt Rabin (a behavioral economist at UC Berkeley) call this kind of thing ‘cautious paternalism’ instead of libertarian paternalism.
I think his phrasing is much more apt.
And yes, it does seem a vast improvement to

change super oldschool “1 size fits all” to
slightly more libertarian “default to bad size 1, you can choose good size 2 by overcoming inertia and exerting choice”
to still more libertarian, but more efficiently paternalistic “default to size 2, but you can change to size 1,3, or 4 if you’re the non-intertia-ridden self-choosing type”

Shades of gray, etc.

]]> By: Robert http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/27/is-there-a-problem-with-libertarian-paternalism/#comment-4973 Robert Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=675#comment-4973 ...a rose by any other name, would still wither and die. …a rose by any other name, would still wither and die.

]]>