Can Libertarian Paternalism Change Our Gun Culture?

How can the government change the framework of choices that particular people are faced with so that their own small errors in risk perception don’t expose the whole of society?

 

What is to be done about gun violence in America? 


Few people believe that stricter gun laws alone are the answer. After all, those laws would need to be backed up by stronger enforcement. Multiple other issues also need to be addressed, such as how to create better access to mental health care and how to promote better gun safety. In short, if we want to reduce gun violence, we need to effectively change the way we behave as a culture. 

So what is to be done? The legal scholar Cass Sunstein has developed an approach to regulation that may be a good place to start. 

Before we discuss Sunstein's concept of "libertarian paternalism," let's be clear about one thing as it relates to guns. Sunstein is outspoken in his belief that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to have firearms nor does it prohibit Congress from passing gun control legislation. In a recent Bloomberg column, Sunstein argues that the Second Amendment has arisen as an obstacle to sensible gun control legislation only recently. Even the conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, Sunstein points out, once said the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word ‘fraud’ -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Sunstein, who suggested taking guns away from hunters in what Politifact described as a deliberately "provocative" address at Harvard University in 2007, has laid his cards on the table. Will Congress follow suit and pass stricter gun control policies in the aftermath of the horrific mass shooting at an Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut? Most likely not. 

And so, setting aside the issue of gun control as it has been framed in our contemporary discourse, what else can the government do to promote safe and responsible behavior?

What's the Big Idea?

While he left his post as the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs this past summer, Sunstein remains one of the most influential legal scholars of his generation. His ideas -- which apply behavioral economics to public policy -- are highly nuanced, and often make both libertarians and liberals nervous in equal measure.

Sunstein, along with co-author Richard Thaler, defines libertarian paternalism as follows:

Libertarian paternalism is a weak, soft, and non-intrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened…Still the approach we recommend does count as paternalistic, because private and public choice architects are not merely trying to track or implement people’s choices. Rather, they are self-consciously attempting to move people in directions that will make their lives better. They nudge.

In other words, the government can present a "framework of choices" to correct "errors in risk perception." At the Nantucket Project, a festival of ideas held on Nantucket, Massachusetts, Sunstein delivered a spirited defense of this model for regulation. 

Watch the video here:

What's the Significance?

The New York Times summarized Sunstein's idea as this:

How can the government change the framework of choices that particular people are faced with so that their own small errors in risk perception don’t expose the whole of society?

These "errors in risk perception" are viewed as biases, which David Ropeik recently explained on Big Think:

Millions of people with such feelings want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to protect themselves from the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives. 

In other words, if we approach this question from the standpoint of behavioral economics -- as Sunstein's push model does -- we must view the gun owner as not a rational actor but as a "befuddled character — bedeviled by impulses and sentiments, overwhelmed by choice." 

One example of this type of befuddled character is, as Sunstein points out, Homer Simpson, who doesn't want to wait five days to get a gun because "I'm angry now." This is an example of a government policy effectively controlling irrational behavior. 

Now let's apply Sunstein's idea not only to gun owners but to the culture at large. Here is an idea proposed by Attorney General Eric Holder back in 2005, specifically addressed to the "creative community":

Those ad agencies that create these snappy ads and make me buy things that I don’t really need...need to focus on convincing young people that “it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore.

Image courtesy of Meghan Brosnan

Follow Daniel Honan on Twitter @Daniel Honan

The surprising psychology of sex with your ex

We all know sleeping with your ex is a bad idea, or is it?

Shutterstock
Sex & Relationships
  • In the first study of its kind, researchers have found sex with an ex didn't prevent people from getting over their relationship.
  • Instead of feeling worse about their breakup after a hookup, the new singles who attempted sexual contact with their ex reported feeling better afterwards.
  • The findings suggest that not every piece of relationship advice is to be taken at face value.
Keep reading Show less

Relationship hack: Why class clowns make better partners

Want a happy, satisfying relationship? Psychologists say the best way is to learn to take a joke.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Sex & Relationships
  • New research looks at how partners' attitudes toward humor affects the overall quality of a relationship.
  • Out of the three basic types of people, people who love to be laughed at made for better partners.
  • Fine-tuning your sense of humor might be the secret to a healthy, happy, and committed relationship.
Keep reading Show less

Single algae cells can help deliver targeted medicine

Tiny and efficient, these biodegradable single cells show promise as a way to target hard-to-reach cancers.

Credit: O. Yasa et al./Adv. Mater.
Surprising Science
  • Scientists in Germany have found a potential improvement on the idea of bacteria delivering medicine.
  • This kind of microtargeting could be useful in cancer treatments.
  • The microswimmers are biodegradable and easy to produce.

Metin Sitti and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Germany recently demonstrated that tiny drugs could be attached to individual algae cells and that those algae cells could then be directed through body-like fluid by a magnetic field.

The results were recently published in Advanced Materials, and the paper as a whole offers up a striking portrait of precision and usefulness, perhaps loosely comparable in overall quality to recent work done by The Yale Quantum Institute. It begins by noting that medicine has been attached to bacteria cells before, but bacteria can multiply and end up causing more harm than good.

A potential solution to the problem seems to have been found in an algal cell: the intended object of delivery is given a different electrical charge than the algal cell, which helps attach the object to the cell. The movement of the algae was then tested in 2D and 3D. (The study calls this cell a 'microswimmer.') It would later be found that "3D mean swimming speed of the algal microswimmers increased more than twofold compared to their 2D mean swimming speed." The study continues —

More interestingly, 3D mean swimming speed of the algal microswimmers in the presence of a uniform magnetic field in the x-direction was approximately threefolds higher than their 2D mean swimming speed.

After the 2D and 3D speed of the algal was examined, it was then tested in something made to approximate human fluid, including what they call 'human tubal fluid' (think of the fallopian tubes), plasma, and blood. They then moved to test the compatibility of the microswimmer with cervical cancer cells, ovarian cancer cells, and healthy cells. They found that the microswimmer didn't follow the path of bacteria cells and create something toxic.

The next logical steps from the study include testing this inside a living organism in order to assess the safety of the procedure. Potential future research could include examining how effective this method of drug delivery could be in targeting "diseases in deep body locations," as in, the reproductive and gastrointestinal tracts.