The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism
Saturday, October 27, 2012
The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty.
There are some interesting thoughts in this review of a book about the threat to liberty from behavioural social science. Are we liberty- and market-minded folk too hung up on the practical utility of our ideas in economic terms? After all the left doesn't care about efficiency. When I pointed out to a leftist professor recently that, while markets were having a tough time in the regulated West, they had brought 100 million out of poverty in the (economically) unregulated East, he answered in a flash, "yes but are those richer Asians really happier?"
A lot of us libertarians are unhappy at the prospect of being bossed, even if we could imagine rulers so wise as to give us better lives than we could ourselves. Freedom is a good for us in itself, just as equality is a good for the left even if it means that on average everyone is poorer. Sometimes although we complain about leftists with a tendency to domination it seems the real problem is with their rank and file supporters being submissives who actually want to be bound, gagged and abused. Telling such people how much better off they would be if they took responsibility for their own lives is perhaps unlikely to convince?
Maybe, as our arguments are not being evaluated by sceptics on utilitarian grounds we should make more emotional appeals? I realise that's an argument for closing this dry-as-dust blog, but what do you think?
I was going to say "you are too kind" and then I imagined my life as a Guardian columnist. Eugh. Somehow I don't think I would get invited to Polly's Tuscan villa either.
Thank you though for your otherwise kind words.
Posted by: Tom | Monday, October 29, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Please don't stop, I've only just added you to my blogroll having only recently found you... and I'm glad I did.
You are right about preaching to the converted, that is the nature of blogging - people tend only to read blogs they like and generally that means broadly agree with. In general the rise of blogging and the imminent demise of dead tree press is generally a good thing, however, reading a newspaper people do tend to read or at least skim through all of it and so are subliminally at least exposed to some different opinions. Iwth blogs that is not generally the case. Of course there is the BBC so we get plenty of exposure to idiotic left wing dogma. Unfortunately the guardianistas do not have the benefit of any kind of libertarian mass media, and even the so-called right wing mass media is rather un libertarian although they do have some good individual columnists.
Try and get a job as a grauniad columnist...
Posted by: cuffleyburgers | Monday, October 29, 2012 at 04:55 PM
I don't plan to. Thanks for being concerned that I might.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 08:49 AM
I can assure you that my modesty is anything but false. I enjoy the process of writing and am happy with my turning of the occasional phrase, but judging the tree of this blog by its fruits, it's a failure. It has only engaged one person of differing views, and is having no visible effect upon his thinking. It may even be hardening it.
Political writing persuades or is nothing. The original Tom Paine won hearts and minds and inspired two great revolutions that founded great, free republics. That's why I admire him so. I, on the other hand, am preaching to the choir. I know I am not worthy of his name and regret choosing it as my blogging trade mark.
I find blogging therapeutic though. When practising law, it helped keep my writing from becoming too technical and legalistic. Now I have given that up, it just helps keep my mind alert. If you enjoy sitting in on my therapy, I am glad. Thank you.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 08:47 AM
Equality is not the enemy of liberty. Egalitarians are. If, that is, and to the precise extent they are prepared to use force to achieve their goals.
As for the Gini coefficient, it's just a measure of statistical dispersion. You can have high or low scores in rich and poor societies. Like the relativistic definitions of poverty favoured by egalitarians, which would describe as "poor" people who are perfectly comfortable, the way it is used is generally as the very opposite of illumination.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 08:34 AM
Noooooo!
Don't close this blog.
Please Tom, don't even tease us about closing down this blog, I come by here every day.
Posted by: Monty | Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM
'Dry as dust'. Oh Thomas. False modesty is the worst form of conceit. The only dryness in evidence here is in the nature of your wit. Carry on...
NB I am not noted for any propensity for arse-creeping...
Posted by: mactheknife | Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Dear Mr Paine
" ... he answered in a flash, "yes but are those richer Asians really happier?" "
Are we to assume that he thinks the newly impoverished in the West are really happier?
" ... just as equality is a good for the left ... "
But only it seems for the plebs. The patricians seem to have to put up with being unequal all the time and suffer a richer lifestyle than the equal poor. How they suffer so they can deliver equality to everyone else.
DP
Posted by: DP | Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Perhaps its a version of the Stockholm Syndrome?
When I was in South Africa just before the 1999 elections I asked the black woman behind the bar in the hotel if she was looking forward to voting. I was rather taken aback when she said no: it turns out that under Apertheid there was less crime and she valued that more than having a majority Government.
Posted by: SimonF | Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 09:55 AM
I'm not sure how far liberty and equality are enemies. How much liberty is there if the Gini Index is extremely high?
Posted by: Sackerson | Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 09:01 AM