Libertarian paternalism seeks to authorize a very wide range of tools by which the state might “control the governed.” But how do we ensure that a government so equipped is “oblige(d) to control itself”? Such a concern begs the prior question, too, of who deserves the right to judge individual decisions to be “failures”, or to be suboptimal from a larger social perspective in a political culture that still values individual liberty. That is the real clot of issues involved with the “politics of libertarian paternalism”, and one that Sunstein fails to address adequately. His failure is instructive, however, for it raises serious questions about the future of “big government”—in particular, what sort of big government we might want, or might ruefully think we need. . . .
This is not a mere question of political theory. Various forms of paternalism, justified by psychology and behavioral economics, are all the rage in governments in the United States and beyond. Sunstein observes that in the United Kingdom, “The Behavioural Insights Team has used this research to promote initiatives in numerous areas, including smoking cessation, energy efficiency, organ donation, consumer protection, charitable donation, and compliance strategies in general.” While economists, newly unshackled from their previous insistence on treating human beings as calculating machines, are giddily revealing innumerable deviations from rationality, policymakers across the world are using these findings as justifications for new forms of state action. The presumption here is both clear and arresting: Individuals are not value-maximizers, but governments either are or can be.
Think of the political class as a band of thieves and you won’t be far wrong. How do you “nudge” a thief?
Meanwhile, we interviewed Cass Sunstein on the late, lamented Glenn & Helen Show. You can listen to that interview here.