Search

Nudging, according to its inventors and defenders, is supposed to provide a non-coercive way of changing human behavior for the better-a freedom-respecting form of 'libertarian paternalism.' Its original point was to complement coercive modes of influence without any need of justification in liberal frameworks. This article shows, using the example of food-product placement in grocery stores, how this image is deceptive. Although nudging practices may not restrict the freedom of consumers, nudging arrangements by public health authorities do restrict the freedom of shopkeepers in standard liberal senses. Libertarianism cannot justify this coercion, and the creed is best left out of the equation as the ideological ruse that it, in this discussion, is. Other liberal theories can justify the coercion, but on grounds that can also be applied to other methods of public health promotion by subsidies and regulation. This result reaffirms that nudging should be seen to complement, not to replace, those other methods., Author(s): Matti Häyry [sup.1] , Johanna Ahola-Launonen [sup.1] , Tuija Takala [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.5373.2, 0000000108389418, Aalto University School of Business, , PO Box 21210, FI-00076, Aalto, Finland Nudging-the [...]

PROLOGUE: ROGER, HUEY, AND SAFFRON 189 INTRODUCTION 190 I. WHAT IS SURROGACY? 191 II. A HISTORY OF SURROGACY LAWS IN THE U.S. AND IN CALIFORNIA 193 A. Surrogacy in the [...], California is considered one of the most surrogacy friendly places in the world, attracting intended parents from around the globe who are seeking to avail themselves of California's laws and bustling surrogacy industry. However, California's statutory scheme overlooks the needs of intended parents who seek to have children through the traditional (rather than gestational) surrogacy route. Laws designed to facilitate commercial gestational surrogacy arrangements make traditional surrogacy arrangements difficult and more costly. This Note discusses the history behind California's surrogacy laws. It centers the story of Roger, Huey, and Saffron (two intended parents and one prospective traditional surrogate), discussing the barriers that they and similarly situated families face in California. It dives into the (often flawed) reasoning behind California's laws, the profit motives that influence the industry as a whole, and the impact on aspiring traditional surrogates and intended parents who cannot afford (or do not desire to engage with) the more expensive gestational surrogacy process. This Note explores the approach of the United Kingdom, where there is no legal distinction between gestational and traditional surrogacy arrangements and there are strict limitations on third parties profiting from facilitating surrogacy arrangements. While acknowledging the imperfect nature of the UK's system, the Note suggests that California might consider a similar alternative route for traditional surrogacy arrangements. This Note fills an important gap in the academic literature by centering the lived experiences of those impacted by California's laws. Whereas much of the literature available on surrogacy focuses on gestational surrogacy arrangements in the commercial context, this Note considers persons who are pursuing traditional surrogacy arrangements in an altruistic context. It explores misconceptions that have led to traditional surrogacy's unpopularity and challenges the industry's paternalistic view and failure to the meet the needs of the U.S.'s changing family structures. This Note proceeds in five parts. Part I provides an overview of surrogacy and explains the terminology that will be used throughout the paper, with particular emphasis on the legal distinction between traditional and gestational surrogacy. Part II briefly describes the history of surrogacy in the United States, with particular focus on California's "surrogacy-friendly" statutory scheme. It explores the legislative history behind California's laws, including the tendency for changes in surrogacy laws to occur after major scandals. Part III describes the practical impact of California's statutory scheme for families like Huey, Roger, and Saffron, such as difficulty finding counsel, difficulty attaining medical and psychological support, and increased costs. It also discusses how traditional family structures are increasingly less common, particularly in queer communities, and explains why some practitioners are hesitant to accommodate these new structures. Part IV addresses the common argument that traditional surrogacy is more psychologically dangerous and risky, and it explains some of the risks involved in gestational surrogacy arrangements. Finally, Part V explores approaches to surrogacy in the U.K. and suggests a need for alternative systems that support altruistic surrogacy arrangements and traditional surrogates.

I INTRODUCTION For people with mental disabilities, (1) the law of capacity plays a central role, determining whether their right to make medical treatment decisions, instruct lawyers, make wills, and [...], Significant uncertainty exists around the current test of capacity. It is agreed that the law is primarily directed at 'function'; that is, an assessment of a person's decision-making ability. However, there is conflicting authority over whether there is an ongoing role for 'outcome ', that is, consideration of the perceived wisdom of the decision made by the person whose capacity is assessed. Recent cases in Australia and England and Wales have indicated that 'outcomes' are irrelevant to capacity, meaning any decision in which the perceived wisdom of a decision was weighed in the determination of capacity would be incorrectly decided. However, this article argues that these recent statements are incorrect interpretations of the applicable law in those jurisdictions. Moreover, it is argued that assessing capacity, even under a functional test, is an inherently normative procedure, from which consideration of the outcome of the decision cannot be fully extricated. Therefore, the challenge is not to prohibit consideration of outcomes in capacity assessment, but rather to manage their consideration, to ensure that they do not overwhelm functional capacity assessment. Suggestions for how this difficult balance can be performed are made.

Nudging is a form of soft paternalism whereby governments manipulate the choice architectures of citizens to steer them toward desired outcomes (including eating better, voting more often, being less aggressive and violent, being more compassionate, living healthier, and leading more fulfilling lives). From the perspective of social activists (including moral entrepreneurs of various stripes), public health officials, social marketers, and government actors, the more subtle forms of nudging help mitigate populist backlash against nanny states which are viewed as overly aggressive and instrusive in mandating by force of law that citizens do what's best for them or face repurcussions. In his latest book, Cass Sunstein examines both the pros and cons of the use of behavioral economics by governments to nudge sometimes reluctant publics to pursue goals and establish lifestyles which experts believe will maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness., Author(s): James J. Chriss[sup.1] Author Affiliations: James J. Chriss is Professor in the Department of Criminology, Anthropology, and Sociology (CAS) at Cleveland State University. His most recent books are Confronting [...]

This Article examines the normative significance of paternalism. That an action, a law, or a policy is paternalistic generally counts against it. This Article considers three reasons why this might [...]

Abstract This is a review paper that explores the issue of the position of woman with reference to traditional Romani community. Studies dealing with Romani issues as well as anecdotal [...]

1. Introduction This study aims to analyze the phenomenon of judicial paternalism in its various facets, a practice that has gained importance in various legal systems today. In general, the [...], This article analyses the adverse effect of paternalistic attitudes adopted by the State, especially the legal regulation of private life. Often, the State has adopted certain positions, especially through the issuance of rules and legal decisions in areas where Private Law and freedom of choice has prevailed, such as private contracts. Due to a protectionist position adopted by the State, legal regulation of private life has increased. The Judiciary resolves questions that arise daily in private orbit precisely because it is considered as the only social actor able to implement its own decisions. In such a way, this study seeks to analyze the possible consequences of this state altruistic posture. It is interesting to note that such a posture is authoritative at the same time, since individuals are considered eternally vulnerable and minimizes principles of Private Law. This, ultimately, could lead from a democratic system to an authoritarian one.

Contrary to the views of some libertarians, 'libertarian paternalism' is not an oxymoron. But are its two most prominent advocates, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, really libertarian paternalists or are they paternalists in sheep's clothing? Thaler seems to be somewhat of a libertarian paternalist whereas Sunstein appears to be more of a straight coercive paternalist. But even Thaler passes up major chances to advocate reducing straight paternalism by making it more libertarian. Those who favor freedom should not reject the concept of libertarian paternalism altogether. Instead they should apply the concept more consistently than Thaler and Sunstein have doneand use it to push for a less coercive government. Indeed, the fact that government officials who plan our lives also have human foibles argues for less government, not true. Keywords libertarian * paternalism * Sunstein * Thaler * Hayek * Social Security, In the last few years, two academics, University of Chicago economist Richard H. Thaler and Harvard University law professor Cass R. Sunstein, have made a case for what they call [...]

Policies that are designed to promote public health should not use coercion to discourage unhealthy decision making. Though public health officials may be experts about medical regularities in a population, they are not experts about which dietary or lifestyle choices are best for particular indiviuals. Experts in regulatory agencies also face several political incentives that undermine their ability effectively to promote health at the population level. Furthermore, without consent, coercive public health policies are extremely difficult to justify to citizens. For these reasons, states should not enforce coercive public health policies, even if the state subsidizes citizens' healthcare. Many of the same reasons to reject coercive public health regulations are also reasons to reject other coercive paternalistic policies. Keywords Public health * Paternalism * Regulation * Coercion * Liberalism, Policies that are designed to promote public health have a pervasive impact on everyday choices. When you get in the car to drive to work, you might buckle your seatbelt [...]

THE 1970S WAS A PERIOD when Canadian workplaces changed significantly. High inflation, wage controls, generational difference, and electoral politics led workers to either considering unionization or to exercise their rights [...]

Physician-Assisted Suicide, Disability, and Paternalism Disability rights advocates condemn certain actual and contemplated 'life or death' practices in our society on the grounds that they wrongly discriminate against disabled people. [...]

Through a detailed examination of legislative changes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this article argues that the bourgeoisie's relationship with workers and white-collar employees in Hungary differed from its counterparts in western Europe. Whereas the latter was customarily shaped by the development of trade unions, labour laws and the incorporation of the labour movement into the political system, it is argued that the Hungarian bourgeoisie preserved its nineteenth-century paternalist tradition well into the twentieth century. Following a discussion of the role that insurance and social security legislation played in preserving this paternalist pattern, the article argues that Hungary's first labour laws, including provision for the eight-hour working day, were introduced in 1937 following the consolidation of the extreme right and the marginalization of the Hungarian bourgeoisie.

Trials of two women accused of killing their infants and two salient discourses patriarchal and paternalist are discussed. It was suggested that the trials of mothers accused of harming their children was symbolic of the problems involved in the contemporary regulation of mothering.

The need to counter the epistemological bias of the present ethics review framework that hinders qualitative inquiry and first-person views in mental health research is presented.

Caroline Howard Gilman created her children's magazine the Rose-Bud in 1832 to lend a southern voice to the growing body of domestic fiction and children's literature emerging out of the antebellum northeast. An examination of Gilman's children stories written in the early 1830s broadens the geographical field of antebellum literary studies, and it also shows how a white southern woman strived to reform her own society and represent a positive rendering of the South to northerners.

The New Deal and increasing strike activity across California after 1928 shaped the plans for the resettlement of Mexican-American workers in self-sustaining villages within Los Angeles County. The New Dealer's commitment was to reform and rehabilitate through planning and paternalism but it failed in its mission because of limits of employer's commitment to worker welfare.

Study is presented to formulate a distinctive form of paternalism, libertarian in spirit and acceptable to those who are firmly committed to freedom of choice on grounds of either autonomy or welfare. This kind of approach of libertarian paternalism would ensure freedom of choice, and will encourage private and public institutions to steer people in directions that will promote their own welfare by providing a basis for both understanding and rethinking many social practices, including those that deal with worker welfare, consumer protection and the family

In 1987, Machan provided a libertarian case against the right to occupational safety. Since before Machan's essay appeared, many business ethicists and legal scholars have given considerable attention to the overall position Machan endorses: the acceptance of employment at will and the rejection of employee fights. No one yet has given adequate attention, however, to the fact that Machan's argument against the fight to occupational safety actually stands or falls independently of his overall position on employee rights. His argument ultimately rests on two values: the promotion of employee interests and anti-paternalism. Insofar as those who support the right to occupational safety share those values, they must find a strategy for opposing Machan's argument that preserves those values. In this paper, I demonstrate why Machan's argument ultimately rests on the promotion of employee interests and anti-paternalism. Then, I develop an objection to Machan's argument that preserves those values. KEY WORDS: consent, employee fights, employment at will, labor market, legal versus moral rights, libertarianism, live options, negative versus positive tights, occupational safety, unemployment rate

Byline: Peter Cane (1) Keywords: Joel Feinberg; H. L. A. Hart; harm principle; Hart--Devlin debate; law and morality; legal enforcement of morality; legal moralism; limits of the criminal law; Lord Devlin; J. S. Mill; paternalism; sexual offences; Wolfenden Committee Abstract: The famous mid-20th century debate between Patrick Devlin and Herbert Hart about the relationship between law and morality addressed the limits of the criminal law in the context of a proposal by the Wolfenden Committee to decriminalize male homosexual activity in private. The original exchanges and subsequent contributions to the debate have been significantly constrained by the terms in which the debate was framed: a focus on criminal law in general and sexual offences in particular a preoccupation with the so-called 'harm principle,' a sharp delineation of the realms of law and morality, and a static conception of the relationship between them. This article explores the limitations imposed by these various starting-points and argues for a holistic and symbiotic understanding of the relationship between law and morality. Author Affiliation: (1) Law and Philosophy Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia Article History: Registration Date: 29/03/2005 Article note: * Thanks to Tony Connolly, Leighton McDonald and Niki Lacey for penetrating and suggestive comments on previous versions.

Byline: Gilles Saint-Paul (1) Keywords: Cognitive ability; minimum wages; regulation; price control; paternalism; intelligence Abstract: This paper analyses the welfare effects of price restrictions on private contracting in a world where agents have a limited cognitive ability. We deal with that by assuming that people compute the costs and benefits of entering a transaction with an error. We first discuss an example of an auction that will attract the least efficient buyers, because these are those who have made the largest mistake. We then study the case for government intervention when the government knows the distribution of true costs and benefits as well as that of errors. By imposing constraints on transaction prices, the government eliminates some that are on average inefficient - because the price signals that one of the parties has typically grossly overestimated its benefit from participation. This policy may increase aggregate welfare even though some of the transactions being blocked are actually efficient. Author Affiliation: (1) GREMAQ-IDEI, Universite des Sciences Sociales, Manufacture des Tabacs, Allee de Brienne, 3100, Toulouse, France Article History: Registration Date: 01/01/2004 Article note: JEL Classification: Gilles Saint-Paul: This paper is based on my Spanish Economic Review lecture at the Spanish Economic Association meeting, Salamanca, December 2002. I am grateful to the organizers for inviting me, and to participants and especially Juan Dolado for their useful comments.

An approach for studying optimal paternalism, which helps people to make better economic choices, is presented. A simple model of sin taxes for unhealthy goods is analyzed to illustrate the approach of studying optimal paternalism.

The assumption that economist always make their choices that are in their best interest, is tested. The approach for libertarian paternalism is defended, that preserves freedom of choice but also authorizes private and public institutions to steer people in directions that will promote their welfare.

The philosophical positions known as libertarianism or liberalism, and paternalism or paternalism, in their application to treatment refusals are outlined. The author then discusses recent public policy governing the alleged [...]

Byline: Eric Mack (1) Keywords: agent-relativity; benefit theory; choice theory; individuated aims; interest theory; moral rights; paternalism Abstract: This essay critically examines three theories of moral rights, theBenefit, the Interest, and the Choice theories. The Interest andChoice theories attempt to explain how rights can be more robustthan seems possible on the Benefit theory. In particular, moralrights are supposed to be resistant to trade-offs to supportprincipled anti-paternalism, to constitute a distinct dimensionof morality, and to provide right holders with a range ofdiscretionary choice. I argue that these and other featuresare better yet provided by a fourth theory of moral rights, theJurisdiction theory. Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Philosophy, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, 70118, USA Article History: Registration Date: 16/10/2004