Not always. Here is the abstract from a new paper:
We develop a theoretical model to study the effects of libertarian
paternalism on knowledge acquisition and social learning. Individuals
in our model are permitted to appreciate and use the information
content in the default options set by the government. We show that in
some settings libertarian paternalism may decrease welfare because
default options slow information aggregation in the market. We also
analyze what happens when the government acquires imprecise information
about individuals, and characterize its incentives to avoid full
disclosure of its information to the market, even when it has perfect
information. Finally, we consider a market in which individuals can
sell their information to others and show that the presence of default
options causes the quality of advice to decrease, which may lower
social welfare.
I do not yet see an ungated version. Of course anyone interested in this topic should also pursue the papers of Mario Rizzo, Glen Whitman, and Daniel Klein.
I consider myself a Milton Friedman Democrat. I endorse the following positions:
1) A Guaranteed Income
2) A Health Care Plan that:
A. Buys everyone Catastrophic Care
B. Has a deductible for medical services that can be shopped, and based partly on income
3) Narrow Banking
4) An end to the War on Drugs
5) Major cuts in Military Spending
6) A Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy, although we can send some aid and jawbone countries
In other words, what I consider necessary is a strong social safety net aimed at helping the poor, otherwise a less obtrusive government than we have now. I believe, as did Milton Friedman, that this could save money, lessen the size of govt, and that it is appropriate for the govt to help the truly needy for humanitarian reasons. This is also Hayek’s view in “The Road To Serfdom”, and has a lot in common with the original Chicago School of Simons, Knight, and Viner. It also comports more closely with the views of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, who were both very pragmatic and non-ideological.
What is my view called then? It seems to me that it’s at least possible that Democrats would accept my positions, but Republicans couldn’t accept any of them. Am I wrong?
I haven’t read the paper yet, but I assume
That’s really impressive. Such a skill would save me gobs of time.
Don the Libertarian, it’s been quite some time since I read Capitalism and Freedom. I see you were referring to the negative income tax (i.e. EITC).
Libertarian paternalism? Sounds oxymoronic.
I do know that people getting welfare tend to avoid going over arbitrary earning limits that would jeopardize benefits.
I’d say that benefits should decline gradually and always slower than earnings rise, but I’m opposed to the whole business.
Handouts should never be taken from others by force and never guaranteed by law. In fact, the notion that they could be discontinued at any time is good motivation. Living off of the effort of others IS precarious, as people in California are about to discover.
To engage in some advertising: My papers (coauthored with Glen Whitman)on libertarian and other forms of “new” paternalism are being published in the fall. “The Knowledge Problem of the New Paternalism” will be published in the Brigham Young University Law Review. “Little Brother is Watching You: New Paternalism on the Slippery Slopes” will be published in the Arizona Law Review in a special issue on the new regulatory state. I will post links both on ThinkMarkets and on my bepress site as soon as the final edited versions are ready.
The premise underlying the notion of libertarian paternalism is: Given that X is socially desirable choice, Y is the least coercive way of getting you (or “them”) to make that choice. I, of course, need no such nudging. One could substitute least troublesome or least expensive for least coercive, and thus have slothful paternalism or capitalist paternalism — the idea is the same. The presumption is that we know what they should do, and that we have a writ to do it to them (for the good of society, or their own good). This kind of thinking leads to really good-bad policies, such as “let’s impose a VAT because consumers will easily comply with it.” That is true, but it means we are likely to impose a higher tax than is economically optimal, because people are less aware of it, or are less inconvenienced by it.
Thanks for this post. You know, I’d really appreciate a post where you suggested news sources that you consider good ones.
Comments on this entry are closed.