Coming here is like discovering one of those Japanese soldiers who were still in hiding long after WWII ended.

The Social Security battle is over…the good guys won. Accept it.

As for the paper…it seems like academics want to take over the government’s role as daddy of our paternalistic society, not do away with paternalism.

I doubt the average American could name a single living social scientist. If you guys want to take over the family, come up with something other than poorly researched papers that you share amongst yourselves.

Is empowering the government to provide “retirement security,” etc., fraught with peril? Absolutely. Would I much prefer a Shillerian future, in which economic risks are managed individuals participating in free financial markets? Definitely.

But defaulting workers into 401(k)s under the so-called “SMART” plan is, all told, probably better than not doing so. Disbursing food stamps on a semi-monthly rather than monthly basis has been found to reduce self-reported hunger (because recipients often fail to smooth food consumption over the longer stretch of time). This is about setting a default that yields the best consequences. One way or another, the government will set the default — so why not try to set the best possible default?

Now, I see the risk here — the soft paternalism argument is an entering wedge for the notion that government can in fact be both benevolent and efficacious across a wide range of policy domains.
But does that mean we, for example, use a crappy means of tax collection that generates way more deadweight loss just because it’s less likely to raise a lot of revenue (the Mulligan thesis)? Or do we choose our battles, and try to make the government we have work as well as it can? That’s my gut instinct.

But I have been wrong in the past.

(1) current policy is motivated by Congress’s inability to give up Treasury revenues rather than to serve the long-term interest of Americans and,

(2) because SS is (as CATO claims, supposing they’re right) not really in the interest of the shorter-living, higher-proportion-of-payroll-tax-paying, low incomers that its supposed to serve?

In other words, are these not NECESSARY condition for paternalisms:

First, that the policy be motivated by a desire to promote the interest of those over whom paternalism is exercised and,

Second, that the policy actually does serve those interests?

Will, and the article he praises, seem to think that the second condition is not necessary. But (even if that does represent normal usage correctly, which I doubt) the really hard cases of “paternalism” are the ones where it actually DOES benefit the recipients (in ways besides respecting their autonomy).

Will does not seem to think that Democrat defenses of Social Security are intended to benefit those who would not otherwise save for their retirement. Nor does he seem to think that that these policies actually benefit the intended recipients.

Fine. I am sympathetic in my cynicism. But that means the policies non-paternalistic, no?

What does paternalism really mean to you? There are key, though quite fluid, distinctions to be made between (1) limiting the range of choices and (2) providing incentives to effect choice. And both of these things can be and are done by government, companies, papa, whoever.

Its superficial to portray the choice as between (a) individuals with good incentives and (b) government that lacks incentives. Paternalistic considerations limit choice at myriad levels, sometimes to the good, sometimes not.

There is a strong correlation between IQ and “Lives in poverty” or “Chronic welfare recipient (mothers)” and most worryingly “Ever incarcerated (men)”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Practical_validity

I gather this paper is about how we should help unfortunates, and whether a “paternalistic” model is appropriate. OK, fine.

But I think the rubber meets the road when we talk about what is the “most workable” way to identify people who need help, and to deliver it.

There is a strong correlation between IQ and “Lives in poverty” or “Chronic welfare recipient (mothers)” and most worryingly “Ever incarcerated (men)”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Practical_validity

I gather this paper is about how we should help unfortunates, and whether a “paternalistic” model is appropriate. OK, fine.

But I think the rubber meets the road when we talk about what is the “most workable” way to identify people who need help, and to deliver it.

What does paternalism really mean to you? There are key, though quite fluid, distinctions to be made between (1) limiting the range of choices and (2) providing incentives to effect choice. And both of these things can be and are done by government, companies, papa, whoever.

Its superficial to portray the choice as between (a) individuals with good incentives and (b) government that lacks incentives. Paternalistic considerations limit choice at myriad levels, sometimes to the good, sometimes not.

(1) current policy is motivated by Congress’s inability to give up Treasury revenues rather than to serve the long-term interest of Americans and,

(2) because SS is (as CATO claims, supposing they’re right) not really in the interest of the shorter-living, higher-proportion-of-payroll-tax-paying, low incomers that its supposed to serve?

In other words, are these not NECESSARY condition for paternalisms:

First, that the policy be motivated by a desire to promote the interest of those over whom paternalism is exercised and,

Second, that the policy actually does serve those interests?

Will, and the article he praises, seem to think that the second condition is not necessary. But (even if that does represent normal usage correctly, which I doubt) the really hard cases of “paternalism” are the ones where it actually DOES benefit the recipients (in ways besides respecting their autonomy).

Will does not seem to think that Democrat defenses of Social Security are intended to benefit those who would not otherwise save for their retirement. Nor does he seem to think that that these policies actually benefit the intended recipients.

Fine. I am sympathetic in my cynicism. But that means the policies non-paternalistic, no?

Is empowering the government to provide “retirement security,” etc., fraught with peril? Absolutely. Would I much prefer a Shillerian future, in which economic risks are managed individuals participating in free financial markets? Definitely.

But defaulting workers into 401(k)s under the so-called “SMART” plan is, all told, probably better than not doing so. Disbursing food stamps on a semi-monthly rather than monthly basis has been found to reduce self-reported hunger (because recipients often fail to smooth food consumption over the longer stretch of time). This is about setting a default that yields the best consequences. One way or another, the government will set the default — so why not try to set the best possible default?

Now, I see the risk here — the soft paternalism argument is an entering wedge for the notion that government can in fact be both benevolent and efficacious across a wide range of policy domains.
But does that mean we, for example, use a crappy means of tax collection that generates way more deadweight loss just because it’s less likely to raise a lot of revenue (the Mulligan thesis)? Or do we choose our battles, and try to make the government we have work as well as it can? That’s my gut instinct.

But I have been wrong in the past.

Coming here is like discovering one of those Japanese soldiers who were still in hiding long after WWII ended.

The Social Security battle is over…the good guys won. Accept it.

As for the paper…it seems like academics want to take over the government’s role as daddy of our paternalistic society, not do away with paternalism.

I doubt the average American could name a single living social scientist. If you guys want to take over the family, come up with something other than poorly researched papers that you share amongst yourselves.