Anti-Anti-Anti-Paternalism
Is government justified in being paternalistic? To some, the answer is yes—government sometimes knows better than people do what is best for them. If people are allowed unfettered free choice, they will not always be acting in their own best interests. Others, with a more libertarian bent, object that people know what is best for them and, in any event, should be able to do what they choose to do.
Recent scholarship has offered a new defense of paternalism, ostensibly consistent with libertarianism. One scholar, Cass Sunstein, characterizes the position as anti-anti-paternalism. As psychologists have demonstrated, people sometimes make ‘mistakes’ about themselves and about the world. And they sometimes lack self-control, doing things they later come to regret. Their true (or more correct) views might be in accord with what government would push them to do, as might their more disciplined future-looking personas. Thus, the argument goes, paternalism can be consistent with libertarianism—especially soft paternalism, where the aim is to give people more information, or otherwise to put them in a position to make more informed, and presumably better, choices.
