Editorial
On Misreading Sunstein
A while back The New York Times Magazine ran what amounts to a puff piece about Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, President Obama's long-time friend, former colleague and one of America's regulation czars. It was penned by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who is identified as "a contributing writer for the magazine and a contributing editor for Rolling Stone" magazine.
The essay was a decent enough account of Sunstein's career and personal life but it focused only upon one of his significant and controversial ideas, namely "nudging" or "libertarian paternalism." This is the belief in a system of government regulations that amount to creating incentives for people to do the right thing (as per how the government or Professor Sunstein see it, of course). Instead of coming down on what government considers objectionable or undesired human conduct with a sledgehammer, nudging works by setting up various tricks with which people are led to act in the way the government people intend for them to act.
Call it behavior modification or libertarian paternalism, the gist of Sunstein's type of government meddling in people's lives is to use a not very subtle program of Skinnerian stimulus-response (after the late Harvard behaviorist psychologist, B. F. Skinner), whereby what government officials want the citizens to do isn't commanded but made the result of various prompters. Although Sunstein and his collaborators prefer the term "nudging," it is a misleading idea since if it involved no more than that, one could just sidestep it.
Suppose my neighbor wants his guests to stop wearing shoes in his home, so he leaves bits and pieces of suggestions to them as they enter it that lead them to take off their shoes and proceed into the home only in socks. OK, but they need not visit him in the first place. So when they realize they're being manipulated into doing stuff they don't want to do – say, showing people the condition of their socks – they can just not visit at all or take some evasive action. There are numerous such situations in our lives, when those with whom we interact desire for us and try to induce us to act in certain ways and we can either comply or opt out.
With governmental nudging, however, we are ultimately being forced to comply with how the government wants us to behave. There is no escape. If we don't go along, we could end up fined or even sent to jail. That is why it is called paternalism, since the government acts as would parents act toward their children over whom they have full authority. The "libertarian" part is a ruse – it comes from the fact that government tries to keep the citizenry in the dark about what it is doing, making it appear that one is making one's own choices when one isn't really.
Anyway, this idea is almost the only one associated with Cass Sunstein and with what he is supposed to be contributing to the Obama regime. The article does mention that he has urged government to go to court in support of animal rights but what it failed to do is mention Professor Sunstein's most dangerous and vile idea, namely, that government is the source of our basic rights.
In the American tradition of law and politics, the foundation of these come from human nature. That is what the Declaration of Independence points out, namely, that we have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – among others – because of our human nature. They are unalienable so long as we remain human!
What Professor Sunstein and his co-author Stephen Holmes claimed, in their 1999 book, The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes, is that "individual rights and freedoms depend fundamentally on vigorous state action" and "Statelessness means rightlessness." This is the pre-revolutionary, pre-Lockean – and pre-Jeffersonian – idea that governments grant us rights; that there are no natural rights but mere privileges we obtain from a government – i.e., a group of politicians and bureaucrats – that can also promptly take them away. As Sunstein & Co. see things, it isn't just for the protection of our rights that a government is desirable but the very existence of our basic rights is due to government! Instead of the citizens having rights that government is instituted to secure, all governments, like monarchs, czars, dictators and such, give people rights, which they can promptly take away at their discretion. By what right they do this is left entirely unaddressed!
That such a reactionary view should be held by the foremost legal mind in the Obama administration is worth full disclosure and exploration, something The New York Times Magazine essay failed to do. Never mind nudging or animal "rights" – those are small potatoes. What matters far more is that Sunstein and Co. believe the thoroughly anti-libertarian and indeed anti-American notion that government is the source of law and rights, not their administrator and protector, respectively.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by clark on 04/16/12 07:42 AM
Tibor Machan wrote, "That such a reactionary view should be held by the foremost legal mind in the Obama administration is worth full disclosure and exploration, something The New York Times Magazine essay failed to do."
No surprise there, they are sell-outs.
It has been many years since I first watched the film, Lawrence of Arabia. After reading The Daily Bell for some time, the second go around was quite unlike the first.
The presence of The Power Elite in the film, and the need for the free market, was quite evident, among many other things.
One thing which stood out was America's loss of what it once was,... in a way. The understanding of freedom and individual liberty is what America has lost, something which was demonstrated with the main character to a T, and was, "poof" in your face by the actions of the reporter. A reporter like most today.
... How Americans were manipulated was quite evident by the actions and words of the reporter in the film,... same as it ever was.
In many ways, the film is a demonstration of how goberment fails, and the Power Elite succeed.
Another big thing which stood out for me was, even the Power Elite depended upon that which the free market delivers. ... And they know it.
When a representative of the Power Elite reaches to turn on a good light bulb, and it does not work, the surprise and disappointment on his face is,... worth seeing.
The film,... the story is very relevant to today's world.
Imho, especially for the soldiers who fight.
S... A telling quote from the film: "There's nothing further here, for a warrior. We drive bargains, old men's work. Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men; courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace. (Tsk Psft) And the vices of peace are the vices of old men, mistrust and caution... it must be so."
What a powerful jammed packed quote that was.
How-freaking-ever, the whole theme of the film was, nothing is written, and nothing "must be so".
But then the pigs set about to divvy up the world.
"Ah yes, but then Ar-ance is a sword with two edges, we are equally glad to be rid of him, are we not?"
And so goes liberty... ?
The Power Elite, as chief architect of all compromises are quite happy with the state of things, and the "reporters" are all too happy to help them. One sad result is, men loose their way.
The most revealing thing in the whole film to me was when the Power Elite representative asked the top dog soldier, "Do you think it was it worth it?"
The response from the soldier was, "Not my business. Thank God I'm a soldier." as he shook his head,... and you could tell he was like most People, he didn't want to think about it.
As if that absolves him of responsibility somehow? You will likely Never read a story where a reporter calls them out on this.
I think the Power Elite representative recognized this with his reply, "Yes sir, so you keep saying."
The Power Elite and the soldier are one and the same.
So too are the People who support the whole she-bang, that's why the reporter was so important in the story. For without the masses, the soldier, the general and the Power Elite would be,... nothing. The sell-out reporter is what helps to keep everything together.
Contrary to what the soldiers might think, the fight for freedom and liberty are divorced from the modern soldier of Empire. The modern soldier is a slave and a servant of the Power Elite which seeks to squish liberty and freedom.
Perhaps that is why so many soldiers today seek the escape of death by suicide? They realize the error of their ways and can see no other out? [That or they are the victims of Big Parma gone mad?]
Too bad for them, there are several ways out, but likely no escape.
As daybreak approaches the robins are singing and a few days ago a comet shot through the Sun. ... And the beat goes on.
... Soldier of Empire, lay down your arms and come home and ride motorcycles and be free? And whatever you do, don't become a cop and help to make there, here.
... Likewise to the reporters, stop being a pawn for Empire and helping to make things worse for everyone. Stop trying to change the world and just report the facts for a change.
 |
Posted by budwood on 04/16/12 02:07 PM
That's one of those neat sayings: "Liberty Depends on Taxes".
Something like "Lightness depends upon darkness" and "Intelligence depends upon public schools". There are all kinds of misguided quotes which sound good enough to be passed out to those who do not think critically. And thus, we have the basis for present day democracy.
I have always wondered how our opposing combatants in any war can have a rational thought in their minds when it is "obvious" that we are morally superior.
 |
Posted by oldman67 on 04/16/12 03:02 PM
Cass Sunstein has ties to an effort funded by George Soros to push for a new "progressive" living constitution.This same organization, the American Constitution Society has been pushing for a more conservative juduciary system since its launch in 1982.Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. Bill of Rights. This is pointed out in Sunstein's 2004 book,"The Second Bill of Rights:FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever." Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors.
|
Posted by oldman67 on 04/16/12 03:15 PM
President Obama suffers from Narcissistic Personal Disorder and since there is no know cure those who aren't sure what it means should look it up.
|
Posted by budwood on 04/16/12 09:38 PM
If anyone looks it up, it is Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Not that it is too important, but most lawyers suffer from NPD. Of course, some suffer much more than others, so it's just as well as to stay clear of such people in general.
|
Posted by budwood on 04/16/12 09:38 PM
If anyone looks it up, it is Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Not that it is too important, but most lawyers suffer from NPD. Of course, some suffer much more than others, so it's just as well as to stay clear of such people in general.
