I hate the name (both words seem to imply the wrong thing... but I suppose they cancel each other out)... but I think this philosophy could be the saving grace of liberalism!
I never heard of it till George Will brought it up:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638

It is supported by human psychology (which most libertarians prefer to ignore) while allowing all sorts of personal freedom in the absolute sense (which paternalists generally do not like).
It "tricks" people into making smart choices and choices that benefit society... while allowing people to do stupid things at their own detriment if they really insist!

This really puts together the two issues liberals tend to have issue with: allowing freedom and personal autonomy... while encouraging (in a meaningful way- not just suggestion) socially responsible behavior...
all using the power of defaults.

The radical idea: make the default the (in general) smartest/most responsible option, while allowing people to opt out.

It's really not all that strange an idea... I just never thought of it as a political concept in and of itself.
But I like it.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Granted, I LOVE the concept of libertarianism. For me, the concept of libertarianism boils down to a single sentence:

People are allowed the freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just as long as their actions do not impede on the freedoms of another.

Unfortunately, this is a direct contradiction to Obama's neo-socialist principles. Libertarians believe America is great because of its people. Democrats believe America is great because of its government. Obama wants to usher in a Mother Government. An authoritarian nanny state that will absolve the citizens of their basic responsibilities of taking care of themselves.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

Really? Like what?

__________________
Man up.

I'd rather not have the government try to trick me at all, or anyone else for that matter.

"Oh, but you like paying for extended all-expense-paid vacations for your representatives in Congress...

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

1. He is planning to spend money on "free" universal health care to the tune of $110 BILLION.

2. He wants to give "free" pre-school to 3-4 year olds.

3. The Messiah promised his followers that American money would stay at home "to help Americans." However, that's not what he's telling global organizations. He's sponsored an act in the Senate that will give the U.N. 485 BILLION dollars a year to fight global poverty--from American taxpayers pockets

4. When the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, The Messiah argued that the role of a justice is not to "uphold the law," rather to favor the "weak" over the "strong." Obviously, if he were president, any appointees to the Supreme Court would be leaning towards this socialist way of thinking.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

You really need to stop taking right-wing sound bites as fact.

It's hardly "universal health care."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

It's making federal health insurance available to anyone who wants it. People will still have to pay for it, just like any other health insurance. And he proposes other steps to reduce costs and facilitate people buying private insurance.

Cost? $50 billion a year when it's fully implemented.

If you're talking Head Start, it's an effective program that you should embrace.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fa...pport-families

His proposal is simply to increase existing funding for Head Start by $10 billion a year.

This is pure crap. That number is so out of reality that it should have been a red flag for you.

You're referring to the Global Poverty Act. Even a nutcase like Phyllis Schlafly admits the bill would cost at most $30 billion a year, *if* it mandated that the U.S. actually live up to its commitment to spend 0.7% of GNP on poverty reduction efforts. But the bill doesn't even do that. Go to Thomas.gov and read the bill itself; it's quite short. All it does is instruct the president to develop a plan to meet U.S. poverty-reduction commitments under the Millennium Development Goals -- an effort that Bush and his administration have explicitly endorsed and supported. It requires a plan be presented within one year. That's it.

That's just nonsense. Here's the speech in question:
http://www.barackobama.com/2005/09/2...ck_obam_10.php

Note that Obama and Roberts *agreed* on the point in question -- which is that in the small percentage of cases where the law is not clear, then justices should err on the side of protecting the weak.

You need to get out of the echo chamber.

__________________
Man up.

Decent enough idea, though one needs to be careful about not crossing the line to trying to con people.

Though it has a horrible name.

Also that may be the worse article title ever.

I don't actually think it's tricking. That's why I put the word in quotes.

There's going to be a default action no matter what the choice. And the fact is that the majority of people will stick to the default. It stands to reason then to set up as many defaults as possible to the most societally beneficial one.
The 401k thing is the best example. How many people forgo 401k savings just because they never get around to setting up an account? If they get signed up automatically... most will not opt-out. The result is more people actually saving for their retirement. And no one is actually forced to do anything.
There are already many things that work this way. Child support is one. The state/county agencies will enforce child support by default... but the parties may opt-out.
School is similar. Albeit if you opt-out of public school, you must find an alternative that satisfies the needs.

I really don't see how anyone could have an issue with this concept. You'd have to either believe (wrongly) that there are defaults that are somehow "more free" than other defaults.
Or you'd have to just worry about the overall expense (which would require acknowledging not only an indifference to but a preference for large portions of the population making foolish decisions with societal impact).
As long as people can opt-out of a default, they are free to make choices. The only difference with switching the default is that it will be less expensive and more comfortable to make smart decisions.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

All of the above examples would be good things, don't get me wrong.

However, to have the government be able to have that much influence in people life could be a dangerous thing if a large part of the population didn't pay ant attention at all to what they were being signed up for. Suppose that Congress enacts a "voluntary" tax on everyone in the country that takes away an extra half a percent of their income in order to pay for extended vacation times for the representatives. Then imagine if people were not informed about it. No one would really notice an extra half a percent, not if congress has an incentive to keep them from knowing. It could easily be slipped into a larger bill and never noticed by anyone not paying strict attention. The problem with this is letting people know that they can opt out. It would be too easy to take advantage of people who didn't know anything.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Oh, I agree with that.
But I tend to think the problem of ignorance and lack of communication are problematic in almost any situation.
It's a whole other part of reform this government needs: improving transparency and government accountability. We need that regardless of any other reforms.

I think the idea of "soft paternalism" is to account for normal human "laziness" or procrastination... not to keep them ignorant.
The 401k thing as an example: the reason automatic entry works so well is not that people wouldn't know about the program otherwise. It's that they wouldn't get around to it.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.