Libertarian Paternalism In David Brooks Nudge Debate

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

“Government show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage.” – Henry David Thoreau.

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

The Principle of Legal Paternalism justifies State interference with personal rights to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm and to guide them toward their own good. Legal Philosophers have often drawn a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Paternalism. “Soft” Paternalism restricts an individual’s actions in circumstances where the conduct is insufficiently voluntary. In contrast, "hard" Paternalism restricts an individual's actions in circumstances where the conduct is sufficiently voluntary.

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

Sarah Conly’s book “Against Autonomy” proposes many counterarguments to the liberalist approach of Mill. One of her most interesting arguments in defense of coercive paternalism is that “while in some cases autonomous action does no harm, in other cases it does, however ‘harm’ is construed – as detrimental to happiness, detrimental to material survival, or even detrimental to the promotion of autonomous action.” It is really interesting because it claims that perfect autonomy would be detrimental to itself. To give

Berlin goes on to explain that placing an importance on positive liberty can lead to, “using organic metaphors to justify the coercion of some men by others in order to raise them to a ‘higher’ level of freedom.” (350). He goes on to use examples of justice and public health as goals used to motivate coercion, and states that this line of thinking presents a path to tyranny. By allowing a governing body to determine a hierarchy of freedoms, or in other words supporting positive liberty, this presents a paradox, as we are surrendering our freedom of self-determination. If governing bodies make laws with the consideration of positive liberty, then the individuals will have no liberty, because they will not be determining the hierarchy of their own

In the contemporary United States of America, individuals, ruled by a republican democracy, are encouraged to participate in social and political affairs. Citizens are provided with the right to voice their ideas and influence government should there be discontent. In a society built upon freedom and liberty, Americans are unimpeded, capable of striving for and attaining goals that they deem necessary for personal success and contribution to the overall community. In a plethora of ways, America is ideal in its advocacy of ‘rugged individualism’. In truth however, a deeper analysis reveals otherwise as the reality of the American society closely parallels with the hyperbolic dystopian society presented by George Orwell, in his novel, 1984.

In the introductory chapter of John Stuart Mills’ paper, he argues that liberty of a person should only be hindered when it restricts another man or his self-protection. The author uses many examples of freedom and how the government has changed and works to further his main idea. Mills also discusses tyranny and how rulers should exert their power to further his argument. Mills uses the ideas of freedom, a ruler’s ability to exercise power, and society as a form of persuading his audience to agree with his argument that personal liberty is good until it hurts someone else. The author mentions how the society plays a large roll in freedom.

Moreover Devlin asserts that moral legislation is crucial to maintain a social bond. He maintains that society has a right to protect its own existence by barring behavior that threatens that existence. This is distinctly divergent from Mill's perceptions on paternalism.

     John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

The “theory of moral sentiment” did not only explain how human behaviors are modified by sympathy, but in addition, the theory supported Smith’s view on what policies should be adopted based on these theories. Laissez-faire was the early form of attitudes that Smiths and some of economists pursued in Europe during 18th century. It suggested that government should reduce their intervention on import and export regulation, such as imposing taxes and tariffs on these transactions on private parties. In addition, governments should advocate perfect competition in the nation in order to maximize economic growth. The Theory of Moral Sentiment has properly backed Lassies-faire up and clarified why human beings can regulated themselves in an

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.