By the way, if you’re interested in labels, there’s a new one on the block: “Libertarian Paternalism”. A commenter on one of Totten’s subsequent posts links to the AEI-Brookings working paper on the subject by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler.
The idea of Libertarian Paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice.To my mind, it’s not an oxymoron; it’s a label, and not a very good one at that. The proposition the authors are advancing is that limiting individual choice can lead to better outcomes.
It just sounds like straightforward paternalism to me. Calling it Libertarian Paternalism looks like an advertising gimmick. The L word is not employed here as a descriptive adjective, it’s more of a fabric softener. It’s like old style paternalism but with added choice.
I’m not dismissing the paper, it makes some interesting points but to try to link the ideas in there to libertarianism just seems plain daft to me.
Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement research at Boston College, and a self-avowed non-libertarian paternalist, found the paper “delightful” (she’s a big fan of behavioral economics). Munnell has some disagreement with aspects of Sunstein’s and Thaler‘s paper, and her concerns mirror some of my own, nevertheless she ends by saying:
Their “libertarian paternalism” approach may serve as a bridge between the libertarians on the right and New Deal traditionalists on the left, and that bridge could help rebuild the national consensus on social and economic policy.It's always good to finish with a flourish, but that last bit sounds a little optimistic to me.
