Robert McClure
Econ 461
5 March 2014
Introduction
The thought of giving the government more power in the name of libertarianism may sound odd, but libertarian paternalism is not necessarily an oxymoron. I will summarize how libertarian paternalism can nudge behavior while also respecting freedom of choice.
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness
Coined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in 2003 then argued in their book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, and in the Chicago Law Review article, Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron, libertarian paternalism is designed to marginally interfere with those behaving rationally and nudge those who behave irrationally.
According to Thaler and Sunstein, people do not always make rational choices and those choices would present themselves quite differently if they had unlimited and cognitive abilities and unlimited will power. The two argue against the notion of the perfectly rational individual that exists in economics textbooks (Nudge 6-7). They reject that individuals most of the time make terrific choices, and if not terrific certainly better than any third party could do (Nudge 7). Real people suffer from a variety of cognitive biases and errors. People have trouble with long division when they don’t have a calculator and often forget their spouse’s birthday (Nudge 6). To be blunt, individuals are bad at calculating risk and are mentally lazy.
Thaler and Sunstein use firms nudging their employees to invest in retirement plans as an example of libertarian paternalism that already exists in the private sector. They argue that people generally do not have the self-discipline (remember they are biased and possibly bad at long div...
... middle of paper ...
...viduals are limited by cognitive biases and tend to be myopic. Government and private institutions can nudge individuals into optimal choices with proper framing.Key to libertarian paternalism is the ability for the individual to opt out of the default option with impunity. Though health insurance is a rational decision that is the optimal choice for society and the individual, the PPACA is not consistent with libertarian paternalism. The government has a legitimate interest in nudging people to acquire health insurance, but mandate with a penalty for non-compliance goes beyond the scope of a nudge. Additionally, in regards to education in the United States, having a student placed into state schools as a default option is consistent with libertarian paternalism. The default position is consistent because of the ability to opt out of public schools with no penalty.
The push for Congress to pass legislation protecting the rights of employees and their retirement was inevitable. Retirement plans are extremely important for all working individuals. Having funds to keep or exceed ones current standard of living and to enjoy one’s life beyond expectations after retire...
Children are waiting endlessly to leave paternal cares and use their man-given freedom. After leaving the nest, we often come to find diverging roads that don’t have clear answers. It’s all about making the “adult choice.” Whatever that is. David Zinczenko, a health aficionado, argues that the fast-food industry is to blame for America’s obesity epidemic. Although with obsolete information, through the modes of persuasion: pathos, logos, and ethos, he persuades his audience to his assertions. On the other hand, Radley Balko, libertarian, believes that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, whether or not they eat a cheeseburger from McDonald’s. Through the use of pathos and logos, he portrays his views to his libertarian audience. The rhetoric between Zinczenko and Balko were significantly different, which leads to the effectiveness also differing. In my opinion, Zinczenko better effectively communicated his claim to his audience, and thus, making his argument better than Balko’s.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds free will as its pivotal objective. As a natural law, there are no events that happen by chance, each event is derived from a cause that led to a specific effect. The law of cause and effect is one of the most universal and most certain of all laws. Ted sider says “humans and humans alone transcend the laws of nature; they are free.” Only humans are dismissed from the effects of a cause when it comes to Free will. I believe it is flawed to assume that we are the only exception to a natural law of our universe. Something as complex as our brains, such as the universe for example, did not create itself, or the phenomenon’s that occur in it. We know that in our solar system events all derive from a specific cause and we also know that everything in our universe is made up of the same matter, and we are all connected energetically. With that being said, I think it is absurd to believe that humans transcend the most established law of
The application of Stone’s theory makes me think of my issue differently because I never thought about how important decision making was in terms of rationality. Also when thinking about the consequences that can come with certain alternatives also made think of gun control in a whole new light. People have to understand how important certain things are in the world and how certain things play a role in people’s decisions.
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin seem to have different viewpoints about paternalism. Paternalism is interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by appeals to welfare or good or happiness or needs. John Stuart Mill seems to be against paternalism since there’s no justification, while Gerald Dworkin claims that it’s justifiable. The question that I will answer is the following: Is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? I will argue against paternalism and that it’s not morally justified and that it should not be implemented. It’s not morally justified because it limits our liberties, in which we cannot fully express who we truly are. In order to have a better understanding, I will start the essay
The patient should have confident and trust in their doctor, but the doctor must also recognize that the patient is entitled to have an attitude to illness and his preferred way of tackling this (Turner-Warwick, 1994). Buchanan infers that paternalism eliminates an individual’s power of making their own choices and thus pressed into making decisions. To achieve public health goals, greater considerations must be directed toward promoting a mutual understanding of a just society (Buchanan, 2008). So, if people are given the choice to make certain decision over another, then they are still granted freedom of choice. Buchanan identifies 3 arguments in justifying paternalistic actions: informed consent, weak paternalism, and utilitarianism. To support his argument of informed consent, Buchanan admits there is no significant ethical concern because an individual may reach out to the professional for help, but it is problematic when an intervention is targeting the entire population (Buchanan, 2008). This point of view from Buchanan is flawed and completely limits what public health is all about. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” With its use of the phrase “we, as a society,” the IOM emphasizes cooperative and mutually shared obligation and it also reinforces the notion that collective
...control. According to Libertarians, simply following an investment/saving plan instead of relying on someone else to pay for you once you reach retirement will allow you to retire a millionaire. They propose that this shift in social security can be paid for by the trillions of dollars worth of assets that the United States government has. The Libertarian Party promises to introduce legislation that will allow you to be in control of your retirement future.
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
Cook, K., Levi, M., O'Brien, J., & Faye, H. (2008). Introduction: The limits of rationality. In K. Cook & M. Levi (Eds.), The Limits of Rationality (pp. 02-47). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7M82yReFf4sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=social exchange and rational choice theory definition
For these reasons and others, some liberal academics and politicians may reject the ‘positive’ conception of rights protection, preferring individuals to make their own decisions and to expand the realm of personal responsibility. For others, state intervention tends to be viewed as only necessary when it 'helps individuals to help themselves'. Once social disadvantage and hardship are abolished, citizens should be left alone to take responsibility for their own lives. In this way welfarism can be embraced, whilst the liberal preference for negative liberty, secured by minimal intervention, still stands.
Paternalism, Goldman says, is never to obstruct an individual’s deeper long-range preference. He starts off with a scenario in which an individual who wants to go to New York is about to accidentally get on board a train going to Boston. A good Samaritan, who we may assume is aware of the individual’s intentions of going to New York, pushes that individual off the train, displaying a form of paternalism. In Goldman’s terms, this scenario depicts justified paternalism because it only sacrificed the individual’s immediate autonomy in order to preserve his deeper long-range preference. In this situation the individual only acted the way he did (board the train to Boston) due to ignorance. His intentions were always the same as his long-term preference, of going to New York. But Controversy arises when an individual’s immediate preferences don’t match up with his or her long-term preferences. In one circumstance, the individ...
Rational choice theory, developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish in 1985, is a revival of Cesare Becca...
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
A crucial reason in favour of mental accounting and overconfidence is decision efficiency. Real-life investing scenario changes every moment Time-consuming and systematic thinking process seldom is allowed during the intense decision-making (Stewart Jr et al., 1999, Busenitz and Barney, 1997). Additionally, the ‘small world’ used by the economic theory, which only applied to strict condition, is not necessarily applicable in the practical investment decision. As the assumption in those analysis approach may not conform with real life well and for most of times, cognitive heuristics is more suitable for the uncertainty(Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011). However, there is also a few argument against them, for it may hinder people from examining their investment choice thoroughly. Research shows that they did not perceive themselves as risk taker, but in fact, they are more likely to take relatively low return alternatives as ‘opportunities’, indicating that they are risk-taking to a great extent(Palich and Ray Bagby, 1995). As a result of the illusion created by such factors, decision makers tend to be narrow-minded in composing strategies and unable to bring enough information into thought(Schwenk, 1988). It was demonstrated by several researches that decisions made by means of biases and heuristics impose
In the words of the Libertarian Party of Canada, Libertarians want “less government, lower taxes, more freedom”. Freedom is used as a broad term, implying a quest for freedom of information as well as individual freedom as citizens. Libertarians have some interesting views on media ownership and copyright laws. They believe in freedom of information for all, small government, and are generally anti-monopoly. Spreading information and power between citizens is the only sure way to benefit the whole world. Concentrated power will be used only to benefit those in power, so if power was given to the people, laws could benefit the people instead of the elite. Libertarians are seemingly conflicted over the idea of intellectual property. If someone makes something clever and unique that they worked on for years, they should have ownership of it, but since that...