Indeed, he’s pretty clearly saying that those who best understand why/how people make the decisions they do – as well as the potentially destructive consequences of their actions – are the ones who should make those decisions.

Right, but this is government technocracy in a vacuum. How do the technocrats get to be in power? Do they just pop into existence? Or are they elected and appointed, subject to the same political constraints and perverse incentives as every other political actor? Who is doing the electing in a democracy if not the same flawed people that need to be told what to do (apart from voting) in every other context?

Indeed, he’s pretty clearly saying that those who best understand why/how people make the decisions they do – as well as the potentially destructive consequences of their actions – are the ones who should make those decisions.

Right, but this is government technocracy in a vacuum. How do the technocrats get to be in power? Do they just pop into existence? Or are they elected and appointed, subject to the same political constraints and perverse incentives as every other political actor? Who is doing the electing in a democracy if not the same flawed people that need to be told what to do (apart from voting) in every other context?

When some one gives me expert advice I don’t consider that paternalistic. When the Food and Drug Administration assures my food to be safe that is not paternalistic. It’s not about treating people like children it IS about using the benefits of societal organization for efficiency purposes.

But the FDA doesn’t merely dispense advice, as an organization like Consumer Reports does. The FDA forcibly prevents people from rejecting its advice and consuming food or drugs that the FDA doesn’t approve of. That is paternalism. And thousands of people die as a result of this paternalism, because not all people have the same preferences for risk. For example, if I have a fatal disease, I am much more willing to take a risky and unproven drug that might have a chance of curing or ameliorating the disease than if I was perfectly healthy. The FDA prevents me from taking this risk. It treats me as if I was a child who doesn’t know any better. This is not efficient.

When some one gives me expert advice I don’t consider that paternalistic. When the Food and Drug Administration assures my food to be safe that is not paternalistic. It’s not about treating people like children it IS about using the benefits of societal organization for efficiency purposes.

But the FDA doesn’t merely dispense advice, as an organization like Consumer Reports does. The FDA forcibly prevents people from rejecting its advice and consuming food or drugs that the FDA doesn’t approve of. That is paternalism. And thousands of people die as a result of this paternalism, because not all people have the same preferences for risk. For example, if I have a fatal disease, I am much more willing to take a risky and unproven drug that might have a chance of curing or ameliorating the disease than if I was perfectly healthy. The FDA prevents me from taking this risk. It treats me as if I was a child who doesn’t know any better. This is not efficient.

Behavioral economics is obviously irrelevant if all the “government actors” have going for them is that they work for the government. But Cassidy -and other “paternalists” of his stripe – aren’t saying that the mere acquisition of some political recognition is what makes a good policy maker. Indeed, he’s pretty clearly saying that those who best understand why/how people make the decisions they do – as well as the potentially destructive consequences of their actions – are the ones who should make those decisions.

If behavioral economics is a kind of paternalism then it is a very distinct kind of paternalism – one that makes a claim to objective reality, and not just the innate, superior juridical powers of the some few. This doesn’t mean that lives “can’t be lived well” outside of this “expertise,” only that the expertise is (much like biology) really, really helpful to seeing what’s going on in the world. (Lives were “good” before Darwin – no?)

Behavioral economics is obviously irrelevant if all the “government actors” have going for them is that they work for the government. But Cassidy -and other “paternalists” of his stripe – aren’t saying that the mere acquisition of some political recognition is what makes a good policy maker. Indeed, he’s pretty clearly saying that those who best understand why/how people make the decisions they do – as well as the potentially destructive consequences of their actions – are the ones who should make those decisions.

If behavioral economics is a kind of paternalism then it is a very distinct kind of paternalism – one that makes a claim to objective reality, and not just the innate, superior juridical powers of the some few. This doesn’t mean that lives “can’t be lived well” outside of this “expertise,” only that the expertise is (much like biology) really, really helpful to seeing what’s going on in the world. (Lives were “good” before Darwin – no?)

Your last paragraph restates Mr. Wilkinson’s original question in a more understandable light.

When some one gives me expert advice I don’t consider that paternalistic. When the Food and Drug Administration assures my food to be safe that is not paternalistic. It’s not about treating people like children it IS about using the benefits of societal organization for efficiency purposes.

Government actors indeed can be flawed. police are often so but we are much better off with them then with out them.

Government regulators can be flawed but I’d argue the current market crisis could have been avoided with better regulation.

This a good quote from Wikipedia, “In favour, it could be said that every state is “paternalist” to a degree. Even the state’s creation and protection of individual property rights might be interpreted as “paternalistic”.

So as I said before accepting the broad definition of paternalism, any society other then that of the fictional anarchy, must have some degree of paternalism. The practical question is in what endeavors do government paternalism benefit society overall and better then free markets.

So again what some might equate as treating people like children I would argue often is NOT the case. It’s nothing more then a group organizing to maximize its efficiency. Finally I don’t deny that true paternalism is possible and does occur when laws are passed that aim at fine tuning actions of individuals.

Your last paragraph restates Mr. Wilkinson’s original question in a more understandable light.

When some one gives me expert advice I don’t consider that paternalistic. When the Food and Drug Administration assures my food to be safe that is not paternalistic. It’s not about treating people like children it IS about using the benefits of societal organization for efficiency purposes.

Government actors indeed can be flawed. police are often so but we are much better off with them then with out them.

Government regulators can be flawed but I’d argue the current market crisis could have been avoided with better regulation.

This a good quote from Wikipedia, “In favour, it could be said that every state is “paternalist” to a degree. Even the state’s creation and protection of individual property rights might be interpreted as “paternalistic”.

So as I said before accepting the broad definition of paternalism, any society other then that of the fictional anarchy, must have some degree of paternalism. The practical question is in what endeavors do government paternalism benefit society overall and better then free markets.

So again what some might equate as treating people like children I would argue often is NOT the case. It’s nothing more then a group organizing to maximize its efficiency. Finally I don’t deny that true paternalism is possible and does occur when laws are passed that aim at fine tuning actions of individuals.