“Nudging” versus “Coercion” – Balancing Environmental Protection with Liberty and Freedom

The recent controversy over the U.S. Government’s increased proclivity to secretly paw through the electronic communications and telephone records of Americans has prompted some soul-searching by many.  Is this just one more step imagesCAPHOYBVtoward fulfilling the Orwellian prophecy of 1984?  Has the citizenry ceded too much of their freedoms and liberty for the sake of feeling safer and more secure?

Some conservatives, like Andy McCarthy, over at NRO, argue the hype as non-sense and claims the government’s action is not only constitutional, but completely appropriate and necessary to change and stop some very bad human behavior.  McCarthy believes it’s not “big government” to blame but the little people in whom we’ve entrusted the keys to the government, and our human frailties.  Jonah Goldberg, over at NRO, however, takes issue with McCarthy, and argues there is more behind the secret curtain that deserves our skepticism. Goldberg contends that we should look askance at new powerful mega-computers and technologies that equip us with the ability to crunch huge amounts of data heretofore never possible.  Goldberg cautions

The arrival of “big data” — the ability to crunch massive amounts of information to find patterns and, ultimately, to manipulate human behavior — creates opportunities for government (and corporations) that were literally unimaginable not long ago. Behavioral economists, neuroscientists, and liberal policy wonks have already fallen in love with the idea of using these new technologies and insights to “nudge” Americans into making “better” decisions. No doubt some of these decisions really are better, but the scare quotes are necessary because the final arbiters of what constitutes the right choice are the would-be social engineers. Continue reading

Advertisements

Too Big to Fail or Too Big to Control – What’s the Greater Risk?

On June 6, 1788, two weeks before New Hampshire would become the ninth and last state necessary to ratify the U.S. Constitution, James Madison remarked,

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Madison’s wisdom and insight over 225 years ago seems as relevant today as it did then.  A similar caution by Jonathan Turley, penned in a WaPo piece this past week, warns of an increasingly unresponsive, behemoth administrative state that has morphed into the fourth branch of government.  Turley’s caution

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand. Continue reading

Conserving Nature by Conserving Liberty

In a newly released article, The Heritage Foundation offers the following eight principles for conservation:

  1. People are the most important, unique, and precious resource.
  2. Renewable natural resources, are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.
  3. Private property protections and free markets provide the most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements.
  4. Efforts to reduce, control, and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.
  5. As we accumulate scientific, technological, and artistic knowledge, we learn how to get more from less.
  6. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site- and situation specific basis.
  7. Science should be employed as one tool to guide public policy.
  8. The most successful environmental policies emanate from liberty.

Continue reading