Paternalism vs. Social Desirability Bias
Why should misinformation be illegal? The standard story is that agents of deceit, often funded by evil governments and political movements, are manipulating innocent citizens into believing their lies. We need government to foil their nefarious plans.
Why should narcotics be illegal? The standard story is that drug dealers, motivated solely by greed, are seducing innocent people into buying their deadly and addictive wares. Again, we need government to foil their nefarious plans.
While should high-risk work be illegal? The standard story is that callous employers, hungry for profit, prey on vulnerable people to staff their hellish factories and mines. Who alone can foil their nefarious plans? You guessed it: Government.
In all three cases, there is an obvious plot hole in the standard story.
Namely: The “victims” all possess straightforward ways to solve their own problems with no government assistance whatsoever!
Don’t want to be brainwashed by “misinformation”? Then don’t listen to “alternative voices” — and roll your eyes whenever you hear them. Tell yourself: “Some rando on Twitter says that vaccines kill. What does that prove? Nothing.”
Don’t want to consume deadly and addictive narcotics? Don’t buy them. Don’t try them. Tell yourself: “A brief period of euphoria isn’t worth the risk.”
Don’t want to perish in a Dickensian factory or mine? Don’t apply for such a job. Don’t accept one if offered. Tell yourself: “I don’t need the money that badly.”
If you support the War on Misinformation, the War on Drugs, or the War on Dickensian Employment, you will scoff at the futility of these self-help remedies. But why?
The honest response: “Sure, your self-help remedies would work if tried. But the people we’re trying to help won’t use them. So government has to pick up the slack.”
This, however, just pushes the question back a step. Why won’t the people we’re trying to help use these self-help remedies?
At this point, proponents of the Wars on Misinformation, Drugs, and Dickensian Employment usually start changing the subject. Even though the following cogent rationale for their position should be on the tips of their tongues:
The people we’re trying to help won’t solve their own problems because they’re a bunch of idiots! They haven’t a clue about their own best interests, so we coerce these irrational, stupid, moronic, impulsive adults for their own good.
The cogent rationale, in a word, is pure paternalism: Since a lot of adults act like children, we shall treat them like children.
Why, though, is it so hard to get supporters of such policies to come out and embrace the cogent rationale?
It can’t be because the rationale is implausible. Open your eyes: A lot of adults do act like children. Verily, idiots abound.
The trouble isn’t substantive, but rhetorical. “Idiots abound,” though true, is an ugly truth. And as the whole literature on Social Desirability Bias teaches us, when the truth is ugly, psychologically normal human beings lie.
The harsh reality is that “misinformation” flourishes because lots of people relish crackpots, kooks, and conspiracies theories — and don’t worry much about accuracy.
The harsh reality is that narcotics exist because lots of people love getting high — and don’t worry much about tomorrow.
The harsh reality is that lots of people want to make money fast — and assume workplace mutilations will happen to someone other than themselves.
The harsh reality is that the vast majority of vendors who profit from misinformation, narcotics, and dangerous jobs would find another line of work if they lost their customers.
Why can’t supporters of paternalism be honest?
The harsh reality is that if they defended their favored policies honestly, support would crash. “Let’s help victims of greedy criminals” makes you sound like a hero to typical voter. “Let’s protect a bunch of total idiots from their own total idiocy” makes you sound like a villain to the typical voter. And in the demagogic world of politics, an intellectually dishonest politician who sounds like a hero crushes an intellectually honest politician who sounds like a villain.
Libertarians and free-market economists normally abjure Social Desirability Bias: “Just the facts, ma’am.” When they confront paternalists, however, libertarians and free-market economists often instinctively weaponize Social Desirability Bias. Rhetorically, the easiest way to “refute” paternalism is not to defend the human right to make your own mistakes, but to attack the paternalists personally. With intense sarcasm.
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows what everyone should watch.”
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows how everyone should live their lives.”
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows what jobs everyone should do.”
If the paternalists are in any way hypocritical, even better!
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows what everyone should watch, even though you watch [some idiot].”
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows how everyone should live their lives, even though you’ve been to rehab.”
“Oh, so you’re the person who knows what jobs everyone should do, even though you own stock in a mine in Equatorial Guinea.”
In a world free of Social Desirability Bias, paternalists and anti-paternalists would stop dancing around the real issue. Paternalists would identify large swathes of humanity as idiots in need of government protection. They’d stop scapegoating suppliers for meeting consumer demand. Anti-paternalists, in turn, would either (a) Defend the right to live idiotically, or (b) Argue that the paternalists are exaggerating the idiots’ idiocy.
Alas, that’s not the world we live in.
I think there is a good reason to make the "So YOU are the one who gets to make the decision?" argument. It isn't about social desirability bias, but rather the procedural point of "how do we choose who gets to make those decisions for everyone else?" Whether or not you think the reason people want to be paternalists is because they want to protect the idiots or just tell everyone what to do, the end result is a requirement to identify what behaviors are idiotic and punish people for engaging in them, along with punishing those who make those behaviors available. In the case of drugs that is a little easier to do (though not a lot), but in the case of misinformation it is a direct path to "whoever controls the government controls all speech". Not to mention that once you assent to paternalism in one realm of life there is no compelling reason why it shouldn't be applied to every decision a person should make; one simply has to make the argument that a given decision is idiotic and you need to be protected from it.
"are seducing innocent people into buying their deadly and addictive wares"
I think this is the part that bothers people. We know that human beings are flawed. We know that X% of people will make flawed decisions under context Y. So it's the knowing creation of context Y for ones personal profit that is a sin.
Do drug dealers fill an existing demand or do they take actions to actively create demand where none would exist without them? If you believe the latter is a big part of the drug market then dealers are indeed complicit in creating new addicts.
This could be applied to a lot of things. A large amount of the economy is to employ people whose job is to exploit human psychology at scale to the customers detriment and your profit. I think most people understand the difference between offering a product of service that makes peoples lives better and offering a product or service design to exploit weakness.