Nudge Me Tender: A Discussion on Libertarian Paternalism
February 18th, 6:30pm
Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein brought the idea of “Libertarian Paternalism” into the mainstream with their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
The authors argue that the State could design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society, and that a “choice architecture” can be established to “nudge us” without restricting our individual freedom.
Many view Libertarian Paternalism as oxymoronic. Despite the name, can this idea offer a “third way” and improve our decision making processes in a beneficial way? Or, is Libertarian Paternalism another way for “choice architects” to manipulate individuals into behaving in ways they view as correct and beneficial, while restricting our individual ability to choose? Understanding the policy implications of this idea is especially relevant as Cass Sunstein was recently tapped to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration.
Join Professor Daniel Klein (George Mason University), John Balz (graduate student, University of Chicago), Korok Ray (Georgetown University) and moderator Courtney Knapp as we discuss the costs, benefits, and policy implications of Libertarian Paternalism. as we discuss the costs, benefits, and policy implications of Libertarian Paternalism.
This Roundtable will take place Wednesday, February 18th at The Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave NW). Drinks at 6:30pm, discussion at 7:00 pm. Roundtables are free for AFF members and $5 for non-members, so join today. Please RSVP to cindy@americasfuture.org.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
It’s actually quite simple in concept, but to implement requires a huge about-face from the general paradigm and attitude of how government works.
The concept is simple: allow free choice, but incentivize the better choices while not penalizing any other choices.
For example, leave the choice of fencing your yard to the you the homeowner, to keep your dog from running loose (and becoming genitally mutilated by the government!), and to keep trespassers out, but incentivize the promotion of protecting your property with a property tax credit or homeowners insurance discount for putting up the fence.
A common example we see every day in practice is the “good driver discount” on auto insurance, where you get a rate cut for being a good driver. (What a good driver actually is vs. what the insurance companies think it is is another discussion!)
Now, some people with a warped view of things would claim A) that’s penalizing the other choices by not incentivizing them as well, and/or B) that’s subsidizing the good choices.
The rebuttals are simple: A) why reward bad choices? B) There is not any subsidy in allowing you to keep your money in the first place.