Becker & Posner on Libertarian Paternalism:
At the Becker-Posner blog,, Becker and Posner discuss "libertarian paternalism" (albeit in reverse order. Here is Judge Posner's take, and here is Becker's critique.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Posner Again on Libertarian Paternalism:
- Sunstein on Libertarian Paternalism:
- Wright on "Libertarian Paternalism":
- Becker & Posner on Libertarian Paternalism:
I can't get over how dangerous the "conflicted selves" reasoning tends to be. It's the modern academic version of the logic of the Inquisition. Whatever we do is justified because it rests on the assumption that we are doing it in the actual best interests of the individual. The rack, the flail, the hot iron? Trivial compared to saving the heretic's immortal soul.
Many smokers have unrealistic ideas about just how dangerous their habit really is. A new study by researchers at Rutgers University and the National Cancer Institute found that many smokers underestimate their risk of developing lung cancer and buy into common myths that make smoking seem less harmful.
The findings come from the Health Information National Trends Survey, a national telephone survey of more than 6,000 US adults, including 1,245 current smokers. Among other questions, the survey asked people to judge their own risk of developing lung cancer and the chances that other people, both smokers and nonsmokers, would develop lung cancer. The results were published in the journal Tobacco Control (2005;14: 55–59).
Current smokers thought their own risk of lung cancer was much lower than that of the average smoker. When asked to compare their lung cancer risk to that of a nonsmoker, about 21% of smokers said it was only a little higher, 23% said it was about twice as high, 22% said it was 5 times as high, and 23% said it was 10 or more times higher.
In reality, a smoker’s lung cancer risk can be between 10 and 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker, depending on how many cigarettes are smoked and how long the person has smoked.
(Relative risk is a pretty useless measure, without knowing what the baseline actually is.)
I can't distinguish Posner's endorsement of the trans-fat ban from paternalism pure and simple.
One real phenomenon that both Posner and Becker didn't address directly is the downright totalitarianism engaged by bureaucrats with irrational constituencies and their influence on actual legislation.
These are closely related to the inquisition analogy that American Psikhushka made above.
For a minor but illustrative example, as Californians voted to increase retail tobacco taxes and to funnel the money into a state agency chartered to provide anti-smoking education, the irrationalists and totalitarians took control. They attempted, I think successfully, to ban sales of candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars, under the rubric that those products miseducated children.
Similar examples can be found in bans of toy guns, bans on "violent" television cartoons, bans on computer games, and bans on advocating use of drugs on radio and TV.
This is no longer rational "education". Its motivation is indistinguishable from that of any other Orwellian "thought control" regime, whether Maoist, fascist, or the Inquisition. Its rationale is the same: to save other peoples' "weaker selves".
The only hope I see is over the horizon. Perhaps in several generations, our far wiser adult great grandchildren will see substance prohibitions and their accompanying thought control regimes in the same light we now view slavery, indentured servitude, fascism and communism: odious relics promoted and practiced by the mendacious of a past generation and believed in only by fools.
Food labeling laws require disclosure about the contents of fat (saturated, unsaturated, trans), cholesterol, sodium, and sugars in food. Most Americans could not even give a ballpark estimate of how much saturated fat (in grams) is unhealthy, nor explain how it differs from unsaturated fats, but we assume that the labels are sufficient.
Can't help agree with Shelby. Posner spends an entire paragraph discussing individual issues with determinging a healthy amount of trans fat from restaurant meals. He then somehow uses lack of uniformity between individuals to advocate for removing the individual from the equation via a government-imposed uniform standard (i.e. the ban). I don't get it.... :(
The body too.
Possibly the most dangerous sentence in the history of mankind. If by "freeing" we mean (as the author* did) coercion.
Okay, so I exaggerrate only (mostly?) slightly.
[*Rousseau]
The body too.
Possibly the most dangerous sentence in the history of mankind. If by "freeing" we mean (as the author* did) coercion.
Okay, so I exaggerrate only (mostly?) slightly.
[*Rousseau]
Well, smoking will kill one in three smokers. I doubt smokers overestimate that risk. What they probably do overestimate is the risk of lung cancer while underestimating the risk of emphysema, heart disease and other smoking related diseases. In fact Posner pulls a fast one by saying
Notice how he goes from claiming all the dangers of smoking are exaggerated to merely citing that the increased risk of lung cancer is smaller than most people believe.
He would probably be a damn good advocate for the Tobacco industry.
The most common subsitute for trans fat is good, old-fashioned saturated fat, i.e. lard. Restaurants are free to use lard, bacon grease and even butter, which has much more saturated fat than lard.
These are no better for you than trans fats. They do taste better, however, but I don't think that was Posner's point.
(*) Relevant for mortality purposes. There may be quality of life issues -- but that's a lot harder to measure, and as Viscusi points out, people ignore the benefits of smoking.
Ah, to live in a world where things have benefits or costs and not both, and where only one factor matters.
Did you ever notice that folks pushing that line never seem to let other people pick that factor?
Well, in this world there are some things that do not have many benefits, yet the costs are great. I am still racking my brain to figure out what the "benefits of smoking" are other than the nicotine high.
As for trans-fats, its true that some of the more traditional substitutes like lard and butter may be equally bad for you, albeit for different reasons, but that does not change the fact that trans-fat is itself unhealthy. And although restaurants may substitute unhealthy alternatives, there are healthier substitutes.
Posner's argument (I think) is that, since there is no way for an individual to properly assess the exact benefits, the government should do it. I think that people are perfectly capable of deciding if the increased cost is worth an indeterminable benefit. (Part of my opposition to the trans-fat ban is cost: upper-class people don't want icky stuff in their food, so everyone has to pay more, regardless of how much they care about said icky stuff.)
I'm not dismissing there is a benefit to smoking (obviously, a nicotine high is worth something, although the addictive effects probably overwhelm the mild euphoric benefits and become the main reason people continue to smoke). But considering the overwhelming negative costs, you can't seriously argue that there is any rational "Posnerian" explanation for smoking. Just from a economic standpoint, ignoring the health effects, the "high" you get from smoking a pack of cigarettes has got to be one of the least cost effective (legal) ones available.
I would like Posner to do an economic analysis of why people smoke. It would probably match his unintentionally hilarious economic explanation of homosexuality. In which he is able to explain male homosexuality from an economic basis but is completely befuddled by lesbianism. "There's got to be an economic explanation, but hell if I can figure out what it is, but damn is it hot!"
The fact that you think the negative costs are "overwhelming" does not mean other people do. They simply weigh the costs and benefits differently than you do, just like skydivers, mountain climbers, or others who engage in risky activities that I have no interest in.
Remember, we're discussing Posnerworld here. Everything, literally everything, has to be broken down into a cost-benefit analysis. The adrenaline rush you get from skydiving has to be better and cost less than an injection of adrenaline. The man has an abacus for a heart. In his world smoking only makes sense if the accumulated costs of smoking are outweighed from the pleasures derived from it. It seems to me that the costs associated with smoking are awful high compared to the benefits, which even you seem to admit to extend much beyond a rather mild high.
There seems to be some evidence that trans fats are more dangerous than saturated fats. "Ounce for ounce, trans fats are far worse than saturated fats when it comes to heart disease. The Nurses' Health Study found that replacing only 30 calories (7 grams) of carbohydrates every day with 30 calories (4 grams) of trans fats nearly doubled the risk for heart disease.(9) Saturated fats increased risk as well, but not nearly as much." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html, citing to Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Intake of trans fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease among women. Lancet 1993; 341:581-5. (While I've seen enough cycles of conventional wisdom that I don't take that as the final word, it appears to be where the evidence is pointing for the moment.)
I suspect that is not a direct quote from Willett, who in my experience would never make that type of mistake.