Libertarian Paternalism: My Take
I believe that North Americans, in general, like the concept of having free choice. They enjoy the concept of being able to decide on matters that will affect them. From what I can tell, this desire to choose starts at a young age. From my own life, I know my daughter enjoys picking the fruit she will eat for breakfast or the snack she will eat in the afternoon. While she usually sticks to picking apples and bananas, every now and then she’ll pick something out of the blue like, say, a raw egg. Now I know that eating a raw egg is not exactly the best dietary choice for a toddler, but she doesn’t know that. However, if I make her eat something else, she will start to pout and get upset she didn’t get to eat the raw egg. While I’m sure many parents can relate to this story, I wonder how many of them realize that as a people, we often act like this too.
Many groups will protest when not offered a choice. They will even petition even if they are. While I’m not politically inclined, I know that if a politician were to impose a new tax increase that there would be a segment of the population that would complain and another that would agree. While perhaps not all parties involved would be aware of every fact, it is quite probable that each one would feel that the other hadn’t thought it completely through. In the end, every person has his or her own view of what is right and what should be done. And while it’s one thing to know what is in your best interests, things really get interesting when you have to decide what’s in the best interests of another party.
The guessing game
Politicians, professors, and even web designers all face the same dilemma in one form or another: figuring out what the people they affect actually want. As a former web designer, I know very well that despite what the web analytics say, or what the sales numbers say, you still aren’t quite sure what people truly want. In fact, even when they tell you what they want, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve actually told you what they really want. For example, often users buy a product that in the end they really didn’t enjoy but never bothered to return. Thus, sales figures aren’t a reliable proxy for want. Furthermore, there are times when people don’t know the terminology to describe their wants or when they don’t understand the root cause of what bothers them. Often at times when they tell you what they want, it isn’t really the case. Also, there are even times when users don’t even remember what they wanted in the first place – they just know that they are upset that you presented choices that disagreed with them (e.g., if you were to be presented with a peanut butter dessert when in fact you were allergic to peanuts). While these examples are simple ones, it is not hard to imagine that the stakes get higher when you start dealing with a nation’s education or retirement plans.
Libertarian Paternalism: a welcome oxymoron for some
Any dictionary will tell you that libertarian paternalism refers to nudging a party to pick an option it would have made anyways if it had enough time and access to the right information (I’m obviously paraphrasing here). In my opinion, no matter how you frame it, Libertarian Paternalism, at its core, is a mild form of coercion. Marketing are masters at this. Marketers subtly sway your choice, be it by a good commercial or a celebrity expert, to pick their product, which they believe to be, of course, the best choice for you. Employers also do this by offering their employees default benefit plans, based on past popularity. They often do this because they believe that what many picked in the past must be the best choice for the population. Know that I’m not against mild coercion or asymmetric paternalism – however you wish to call it, in any way. I’m actually a proponent of it. The fact of the matter is, as a whole, people simply can’t be knowledgeable about every decision they make. I don’t care what some people may say it’s just not practical. If we were to read every disclaimer before installing some software, or research every ingredient found on the side of a cereal box before we bought some, life would become overly cumbersome. Add to this, people’s tendency to procrastinate, choose the status quo and resist being controlled and it’s amazing that anything ever gets done.
Personally, I appreciate a little bit of sway, a little bit of subtle suggestion. I personally don’t mind if someone is trying to steer me towards a choice he feels is best for me as long as I can choose something else if he guessed wrong. Amazon is a great example of a company that gets this right.
I also appreciate this because, while some choices are simple because I’ve made them in the past, some are quite hard as they are foreign to me. Therefore, I appreciate hints and suggestions during times like those. However, it should be said that despite anyone’s best intensions, no one can tell the future, not consistently at least. Thus, every attempt at libertarian paternalism has the inherit risk of harming someone in some way. But, I guess that’s par for the course.
Between a rock and a hard place
There will always be critics. No matter how asymmetric a tactic is, someone will have a beef. If there is a default choice, some will ask, “why that choice?” If there is no default choice, others will complain that they’d rather have someone more knowledgeable choose for them. So what should we do? If you ask me, it’s better to try to make the right choice for someone based on the best information available at that time rather than doing nothing. As long as that someone can choose something else if they happen to disagree and the process is as transparent as reasonably possible, by all means. All I know is that as long as some people still think it’s OK to eat raw eggs, then for some people, a little libertarian paternalism couldn’t hurt.
Comments