[Mb-civic] Protecting People From Themselves - David S. Broder - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Protecting People From Themselves
<>
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B07

Apparently worried that we don't have enough to worry about, the editors 
of the Economist, the British newspaper that looks like a magazine, put 
on their April 8 cover an ominous, giant eyeball, under the headline 
"The state is looking after you."

The subject of the issue's lead editorial and a three-page special 
report is the threat to individual freedom the editors discern in a new 
movement gaining support among some politicians and academics on both 
sides of the Atlantic.

They call it "soft paternalism." Its practitioners "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."

An example of soft paternalism can be found in Missouri. According to 
the Economist, the state has passed a statute barring some residents 
from setting foot in any of the 11 riverboat casinos it has licensed. 
Those who are caught violating the law can be arrested for trespassing 
and see their winnings confiscated by the cops.

That sounds pretty harsh, but the ban applies only to those who have 
voluntarily placed their own names on the list, in order to break their 
addiction to gambling. The magazine says that about 10,000 gamblers have 
taken that step in Missouri, seeking help for a problem in their lives.

Similar approaches can change economic behavior. One experiment showed 
how the national savings rate might be increased by tweaking the way 
companies set up their retirement plans.

Currently employers typically induce workers to save for these plans by 
promising to match the portion of the salary the employee puts aside for 
his retirement years. The government provides tax incentives for such 
accounts.

But despite their obvious attractions, lethargy or the desire to 
maximize current take-home pay keeps many workers from signing up. The 
proposed solution: Make deductions for the savings plans automatic, 
unless the worker opts out. In one company where the change was made, 
participation jumped from 49 percent to 86 percent, boosting prospects 
for bright retirements.

The Economist's articles spotlight a variety of other schemes that have 
been concocted by noted economists and lawyers such as Cass Sunstein of 
the University of Chicago. Their common theme is a desire to achieve 
some widely recognized social goal with what sponsors consider a minimal 
loss of freedom.

For example, everyone knows that anti-smoking campaigns have persuaded 
millions of people to quit. But millions of others continue to 
jeopardize their health and increase the national medical bill because 
they cannot keep their promise to themselves to quit smoking next week 
or next month.

The soft paternalists recommend further government intervention. One 
option they suggest would be a ban on smoking for everyone except those 
who purchase a rather expensive license to persist. By forcing the 
choice in explicit terms, government could nudge people into doing what 
they say they want to do -- quit.

Another possibility, even less coercive, would be to sell cigarettes 
only by contract. In this scheme, an individual would sign up and pay in 
advance for, say, one carton a week or maybe two a month, and would be 
limited to that number. By moving the choice away from the immediate 
impulse, the state would make the decision more deliberate and thereby 
help the smoker break the habit.

On all these proposals, the Economist's editors have one nagging 
concern: Will these soft paternalism schemes gradually, over time, erode 
individual freedom? Will soft paternalism simply be a way station on the 
road to a more authoritarian state, one where smoking is banned entirely 
or saving is required from every paycheck?

They quote with approval John Stuart Mill's warning in his essay "On 
Liberty": "He who lets the world . . . choose his plan of life for him, 
has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation." By 
contrast, the free individual must possess reason and judgment to make 
his own decisions, "and when he has decided, firmness and self-control 
to hold to his deliberate decision."

Their worry is that soft paternalism will weaken those virtues. You are 
welcome to join them if your worry list is worrisomely short.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401447.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060416/fa6558c9/attachment.htm