4 ms·

>This represents a great challenge for those who believe that individuals left to their own devices are most likely to make rational choices. The unfortunate r

>This represents a great challenge for those who believe that individuals left to their own devices are most likely to make rational choices. The unfortunate reality is that institutions, organizations, and governments are also not prone to making rational choices when left to their own devices, due to them being made up of individuals as well. Paternalism requires a faith that those in charge are somehow more free from the limitations of our flawed nature while also having others' interests at heart.

notduncansmith 8y ago
> Paternalism requires a faith that those in charge are somehow more free from the limitations of our flawed nature while also having others' interests at heart. We have technology to coordinate group action plans and execute them transparently, and our culture is gradually beginning to support honesty around failure and change, no longer demanding the appearance of perfection (which seems to be the driving force behind the failure of so many attempts at paternalism). It would appear, then, that we could collaboratively and openly engineer a culture that supports flawed-but-honest-and-still-competent leadership in their attempts to advance community-sponsored projects and leverage technology to facilitate transparency at scale. Is there a reason this approach is inherently untenable (as opposed to just logistically difficult)?
- waterhouse 8y ago
  To quote Henry Hazlitt: "Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible." This is a major obstacle to "collaboratively and openly" deciding on the right policies (paternalistic or otherwise). If the process is open, it probably won't be collaborative: the discussion might end up dominated by those with special interests. I believe this is how the notion that tariffs might be a good idea (for economic purposes, anyway) has made it into public policy—this is one of the items Hazlitt's book goes through[1]. With regard specifically to "paternalistic" policies, one of the chapters is titled "The Assault on Saving", and I could easily imagine that people guided by Keynesian economics would recommend inserting trivial inconveniences to discourage people from saving their money while nudging them towards spending it, so as to increase aggregate demand and therefore the greater good. [1] http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html , see chapter 11 for tariffs and 24 for "The Assault on Saving"
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > for economic purposes, anyway A very important qualifier, thanks for including it. Few people seem aware of that aspect, which I suspect results in a rather large number of confident conclusions about the intelligence of other people, that happen to actually be wrong.

notduncansmith 8y ago

> Paternalism requires a faith that those in charge are somehow more free from the limitations of our flawed nature while also having others' interests at heart. We have technology to coordinate group action plans and execute them transparently, and our culture is gradually beginning to support honesty around failure and change, no longer demanding the appearance of perfection (which seems to be the driving force behind the failure of so many attempts at paternalism). It would appear, then, that we could collaboratively and openly engineer a culture that supports flawed-but-honest-and-still-competent leadership in their attempts to advance community-sponsored projects and leverage technology to facilitate transparency at scale. Is there a reason this approach is inherently untenable (as opposed to just logistically difficult)?

waterhouse 8y ago
To quote Henry Hazlitt: "Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible." This is a major obstacle to "collaboratively and openly" deciding on the right policies (paternalistic or otherwise). If the process is open, it probably won't be collaborative: the discussion might end up dominated by those with special interests. I believe this is how the notion that tariffs might be a good idea (for economic purposes, anyway) has made it into public policy—this is one of the items Hazlitt's book goes through[1]. With regard specifically to "paternalistic" policies, one of the chapters is titled "The Assault on Saving", and I could easily imagine that people guided by Keynesian economics would recommend inserting trivial inconveniences to discourage people from saving their money while nudging them towards spending it, so as to increase aggregate demand and therefore the greater good. [1] http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html , see chapter 11 for tariffs and 24 for "The Assault on Saving"
- mistermann 8y ago
  > for economic purposes, anyway A very important qualifier, thanks for including it. Few people seem aware of that aspect, which I suspect results in a rather large number of confident conclusions about the intelligence of other people, that happen to actually be wrong.