The Economist asks: are you ready for "Soft Paternalism"
Liberals sometimes dream of a night-watchman state, securing property and person, but no more. They fret that societies have instead submitted to the nanny state, a protective but intrusive matriarch, coddling citizens for their own good.
Economists, with their strong faith in rationality and liberty, have tended to agree. As many decisions as possible should be left in the individual's lap, because no one knows your interests better than you do. Most of us have gained from this freedom.
But a new breed of policy wonk is having second thoughts. On some of the biggest decisions in their lives, people succumb to inertia, ignorance or irresolution. Their private failings -- obesity, smoking, boozing, profligacy -- are now big political questions. And the wonks think they have an ingenious new answer -- a guiding but not illiberal state.
What they propose is "soft paternalism." Thanks to years of patient observation of people's behavior, they have come to understand your weaknesses and blind spots better than you might know them yourself. Now they hope to turn them to your advantage.
They are paternalists, because they want to help you make the choices you would make for yourself -- if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike "hard" paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aim only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.
Technocrats, itching to perfect society, find it irresistible. What should the supposed beneficiaries think?
Read the rest of the article: The State Is Looking After You.
My own inclination is to round up the advocates of "soft-paternalism" and stick them into concentration camps until they see the error of their ways. Did I say concentration camps? I'm sorry, I meant to say re-education camps. No--scratch that. They need to be put in therapy camps. That's it. Therapy is always good. It has such a nice, positive ring to it. And I don't want to be cruel about it. It should be voluntary. Of course, anyone who displays such tendencies will be enrolled in therapy camp by default. They can opt out by calling a toll free number that will be manned on each and every February 29th between the hours of 3 and 4 a.m. Central Standard Time. There may be some delay in processing the opt out application. Hopefully no more than six months.
Well, this beneficiary would tell them to *OAD, except that would probably violate the language standards of this site. Dressing up tyranny in pretty language and quiet, soothing voices doesn't impress me all that much.
P.J. O'Rourke wrote about liberals who want federal regulation of bedtime. That used to be a joke.
tcobb's humourous response actually makes a bunch of serious points, given the way governments actually work and bureaucrats who believe they know what's best for people tend to behave.
The central problem here is the public socialization of risk. If the government pays for health care, then efforts to use state power to cut down on smoking, obesity et. al. are not unusual - they're inevitable, given the potential savings. Since health in particular is affected by all aspects of your life, the logical end point is a government that seeks to "guide" you in many aspects of your life.
I'll note here that in a world where this was handled privately, insurance company fees would provide many of the same incentives - and we see some similar trends in corporate health plans. As their expense grows, moves are afoot to narrow targeting in order to remove "risky" populations. Unless actively blocked by law, eventually we end up in somewhat the same place.
Yet if there are similarities between these two worlds, there are great differences as well. Beside government, even insurance companies look responsible, flexible, and far more accountable for both results and respect of their customers' limits. That insurance companies are so very far from perfect in these areas serves only to illustrate how massive governments' failings really are.
My personal prediction is that the Levitating Left (levitating because its foundations have all been destroyed and no longer exist) must eventually morph from a group with religion's characteristics to a religion-driven group. Something not all that far from the 1920s social action movements strikes me as highly likely, given generational eras and the need for something, anything to rest on that is real. And Puritanism has deep roots in America's character.
If I'm right, then on the question of soft paternalism we ain't seen nothin' yet.
But as it is insurance companies, particularly those in health care, have almost no motivation to provide the kinds of incentives you're looking for.
We'll make your decisions for you and send you the bill. Leftism in a nutshell.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan
From my perspective, a move by modern liberals toward 'soft paternalism' would constitute a shift to the right.
In practice, any distinction between "soft" and "hard" paternalism would soon disappear. If the incentives used did not change the public's behaviour as far or as fast as the technocrats wanted, they would make them stronger. Gentle persuasion would gradually turn into compulsion, and this process would be hastened by pressure to produce tangible results in time for the next election or some other political deadline.
Even in theory there is little real difference between the "soft" and "hard" varieties of paternalism. Both assume that the people cannot be trusted to make wise choices and must therefore have choice taken away from them. Both treat the people as masses rather than individuals. Both are utilitarian, and ultimately both are anti-democratic in their assumption that a superior ruling class must guide the rest of society.
In any form, paternalism combines the fallacies of socialist central planning with those of aristocracy.
The main problem i have with the whole concept is that it attempts to trump the market, and that almost always ends horribly.
In the coming decades…
Better technology will make some of these issues obsolete. Biotech cures for obesity, addiction, and cancer would address many of the health related problems directly so indirect approaches would have less appeal.
Genetic and brain research will lead to new technologies for identifying socially undesirable mental traits and for modifying those traits.
New deadly technology will empower deranged individuals, fanatical cults, and gangs.
Traditional views of civil liberty and individual rights will drastically change.
I have a difficulty with the notion that any paternalism backed by government force can ever be "soft."
This seems like category error to me.
I'm favor of some of this. I can handle taxing alcohol and cigarettes: alcohol, because people go on to do damned stupid things on alcohol that the state later has to pay for (drunk driving, fights, etc).
Tobacco: a good portion of money goes back to anti-smoking ads, which are a good thing (even if annoying) hopefully some of that money goes to cancer research and hospital support, but probably not.
In the next 15-20 years there is going to be a diabetes pandemic in this country, due to the sudden emergence of type II in kids. This is going to majorly block up medical services for everyone. Of note: one HMO stopped their diabetes prevention clinic because it was cheaper for their books to wait until people had full blown diabetes.
This is one of the reason that I support removing all candy advertising to children under the age of 12. Children are not psychological prepared to deal with sophisticated marketing schemes; and the goods they sell have no value to children. Heck, when I have kids I'll probably try to get rid of our TV (which will be a sad day).
All of these things come back to bite us in the ass (as a collective nation). If smoking/obesity/disorderly drunkeness cause problems that the goverment will have to pay for, it makes sense to curb some involvement, but leave the option open to those who choose to use it.
I see what you're saying about the goverment being worse than the free hand, but corporations are getting more and more aggressive with how their employess use their free time: there's the company that fired smokers, required employees to eat vegetarian food, or the Miller employee who was fired for drinking a bud light
This discussion so far offers all the cliches about liberalism one gets from places like the Economist and the Wall Street Journal.
Fact: That beer-drinking, tobacco-slinging, barbeque-gorging redneck may like to feel that he is to live as he pleases, but when he has a heart attack and gets diagnosed with lung cancer and a diseased liver, who do you think pays? THE STATE. His fellow taxpayers pay for his negligence.
This is why America, despite 45 million uninsured people, pays the most per capita in government healthcare spending in the world. The French pay less than Americans, and get better care, in their socialized system, as do most other European countries. Sure, our system offers much better incentives for pharmaceutical companies to devise new medicines and treatments, but let's not ignore the fact that we pay a lot in taxes for this ability.
Earth to free-market zealots: sometimes intrusive government actually makes things more efficient, and gives us the the least bad outcome of two possible scenarios. Unless you want the redneck to die on the street, you are going to pay for his habits one way or another, and I'd rather stick him with high tobacco taxes and reducing the cost of his monthly health plan payments if he is willing to cut out the fried chicken and get on the treadmill.
PS. Sorry about the use the redneck, but I its payback for the Reagon's Cadillac welfare queen.)
PPS. Reagon's famous most scary words have to be updated: the new most terrifying words are: "I'm from the US government and we are here to liberate your country."
Hi everybody,
I´m a Dutch citizen living in Amsterdam. This soft paternalism has drawn my attention and i would like to learn more about it. Could anyone tell me about some of the states (US) or other countries where we find examples of soft paternalist policies?
Thank you in advance,
Martijn