| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 6:29 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
 Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Libertarian Paternalism |
  |
|
Well, Nudge is out. Co-authored by one of the bigwigs in behavioral economics, the book makes a case for what they call "libertarian paternalism". The same authors have a couple of academic papers on the matter that can be downloaded in PDF format here and here.
Is libertarian paternalism an oxymoron? Can it really work?
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 4:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://mises.org/story/2965
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 6:29 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Gordon wrote: | | Their escape from apparent contradiction is ingenious. It is indeed unlibertarian, they say, to use force to compel someone to act for his own good. They do not favor doing so; but this leaves them free to support a less exigent variety of paternalism. It is all right to render it difficult for people to make certain choices, as long as doing so does not impose substantial costs on them. People, as their title suggests, may be subject to paternalistic "nudges," so long as these nudges do not coerce them. |
Wow.
It's traditional to actually read a book before reviewing it.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 4:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He did.
It's traditional to know what the fuck you're talking about before posting. Just a hint.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 6:29 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | He did. |
It doesn't show.
| Quote: | | It's traditional to know what the fuck you're talking about before posting. Just a hint. |
You better stop posting, then.
So, does anybody who actually thinks about things as opposed to taking mises.org as dogma have anything to say about this?
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 4:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | He did. |
| Philosophos wrote: | | Doesn't show, then. |
Other than the direct quotes, you mean?
| Knight of BAAWA wrote: | | It's traditional to know what the fuck you're talking about before posting. Just a hint. |
| Philosophos wrote: | | Doesn't stop you. |
Jesus fuck--get over your butthurt.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 5:29 PM
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | only actions that meet rigid requirements count as full choices. |
I believe using this premise, since we are never going to be omniscient, will always make all decisions fall under the category of not being "full choices."
...all it will take is for someone to point out something which you haven't accounted for to render all of your decisions (whether implicit or otherwise) as being not "full choices."
...in effect I believe he has defined "full choices" out of existence, and I believe paternalists are doing this as a way to convince themselves that using "indirect force" is "okay." Even in "restricting choices" you will employ a degree of force to impliment and maintain that restriction, it already sounds like a government ban on something.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 6:29 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Even in "restricting choices" you will employ a degree of force to impliment and maintain that restriction, it already sounds like a government ban on something. |
Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either.
So... does anyone who: a) isn't a dick-sucker or Rothbard, or b) actually learns something about the issues they spout off about
have anything to say about this?
Yeah... I'm probably on the wrong forum to ask for and honest and insightful opinion about political issues.
(P.S. lub ya lumpy!)
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 4:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Even in "restricting choices" you will employ a degree of force to impliment and maintain that restriction, it already sounds like a government ban on something. |
| Philosophos wrote: | | Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either. |
But it is.
So, is anyone who isn't a lying poseur going to try to defend "libertarian paternalism"?
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 6:29 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Philosophos wrote: | | Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either. |
But it is. |
Only to those who are functionally illiterate.
Learn. To. Read.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 4:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | But it is. |
| Philosophos wrote: | | Only to those who are functionally illiterate. |
Nope.
Learn. To. Read.
And get over your butthurt.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 5:29 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either. |
They just don't phrase it that way because they have to maintain the contradiction. The only way to maintain the contradiction is to evade it's existence by calling it the exact opposite of what it is, and pretend they're being consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism
| Quote: | | Soft Paternalism, also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism, is a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind." |
| Quote: | | But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.” |
They intend to infringe, which already confesses the contradiction, but they rationlize it away by saying "without infringing GREATLY on your freedom of choice."
So, by setting up this false sense of degree in which less is better than more infringment, they ignore the basic premise that infringment itself is morally indefensible...
Only an individual can be held responsible for making his own decisions, not a state.
This reminds me of how people who listen to censored music call it "clean versions" to put a nice sounding twist on it... when in fact it's CENSORSHIP.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs
Last edited by lumpymunk on Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Philosophos wrote: | | Okay. But libertarian paternalism isn't for restricting choices, either. |
They just don't phrase it that way because they have to maintain the contradiction. The only way to maintain the contradiction is to evade it's existence by calling it the exact opposite of what it is, and pretend they're being consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism
| Quote: | | Soft Paternalism, also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism, is a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind." |
|
sounds like the goal of a benevolent monarchy.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
