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.

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.

I’d rather not shift the discussion too far away from the original topic of paternalism. If you’re interested in libertarian anarchism, there are more than enough other places on the web to discuss the topic. Further, the question of how a just system would work, and the question of whether and to what extent free societies have existed in the past, are distinct from the question of whether a certain social institution is or is not just.

The focus is paternalism: is it okay to treat adults as if they were children? Or, to get even closer to the original topic, does discovering that people are even less like homo economicus than we previously believed give us more reason to treat people as children? Or does the fact that government actors are just as (if not more) flawed as non-government actors make the discoveries of behavioral economics irrelevant to questions of paternalism?

What you propose requires a massive constitutional overhaul. At best I could see the compromise being decreased federal control but your same issues would come up at the state level. I guess then my “free to move” would be more legitimate. Overall , I convinced such a system would result in yet another civil war and or break up of our union.

Well anyway at least you admit you are an anarchist. I don’t think I ever debated the principal. I would probably just ask, like I do of libertarians, for you to point me to one successful anarchy based society that exist today or has ever existed. I think of places in Africa that don’t seem too nice.

They are completely free to opt out and move to the next Libertarian Run society over.

And by the same token, paternalists are completely free to opt out of a non-paternalist system and move to the next paternalist society elsewhere. You are assuming facts not in evidence: that paternalists and not libertarians have a legitimate and rightful claim to govern other people’s lives.

People want democracy and you seem to think they shouldn’t have it.

Sure they should have it. For themselves. Anyone who wants to willingly submit to the will of other people should be free to do so. What they should not be free to do is subject the unwilling to their dictates.

See the problem for you and your argument of the tyranny of the majority is that your position is undemocratic.

Yes, it is undemocractic. So what?

You are expecting the rest of us to give up our democracy (representative republic).

No, I am expecting the rest of you to stop imposing your democracy on people who don’t want it. You’re more then welcome to impose it on those who do want it.

Further you also believe in some degree of tyranny yourself or you are by definition an anarchist.

Indeed, I am an anarchist. Again, so what?

Micah under what name did you participate over at Cafe Hayek?

Same as here. I just didn’t post much over there, because the level of discourse was much lower.

They are completely free to opt out and move to the next Libertarian Run society over. Good luck finding one. Or they could democratically vote in a Libertarian administration… but since you don’t believe in democracy that won’t work. So what is left? A Junta, a military coup d’état? People want democracy and you seem to think they shouldn’t have it. There just doesn’t seem to be much in common with the libertarian ideology and human nature.

See the problem for you and your argument of the tyranny of the majority is that your position is undemocratic. You are expecting the rest of us to give up our democracy (representative republic). Further you also believe in some degree of tyranny yourself or you are by definition an anarchist.

The idea of paternalism as I see it involves issues better performed or more efficiently performed by the state. So the idea of people choosing “paternalistic” policies for themselves is not very practical.

Do these rugged individualist plan to build their own superhighways or ICBM’s for protection.

Micah under what name did you participate over at Cafe Hayek?

If you think that “many people see their self interest furthered in a slightly more paternalistic society,” then surely these people would willingly choose these paternalistic policies for themselves, correct? In which case, the policies would no longer be considered paternalistic since they are self chosen. So why not let the few people who want less paternalistic policies go in peace, opt-out of the system you believe is so incredibly popular? Unless you think people don’t really know what’s best for themselves, but you do know what’s best for them.

You say that paternalism is a derogatory term for electoral democracy. But what is electoral democracy if not a majority voting to tell the minority what to do, whether the minority likes it or not? The majority is treating the minority as if the minority were comprised of children. Ergo, paternalism.

On the other hand, if people can’t be trusted to live their own adult lives, surely they shouldn’t be trusted to vote on how other people should live their own lives, no? So perhaps paternalism countenances against democracy and for technocracy.

Bottom line the term paternalism is deragatory term for those of us who believe in a democratic government people of by and for the people.

“No rugged individualist ever owned a skyscraper. They live in the wilderness on their own and are poor by materialistic measurements. The owners of skyscrapers are ingenious benifactors of planned civilized societies that tax its members.”

Me … 2008

The question isn’t whether we can get on “well” enough without this or that institution, but whether the institution marginally optimizes human flourishing.