'Libertarian Paternalism'

I was rattling on and on over MSN to Mr. Bird about sociological terms, and suddenly he threw up a term that didn't seem difficult to comprehend at face value: 'libertarian paternalism'.

So being a new-age fossil of the cyberworld I headed to the 'state of the art' website a.k.a Google and searched it. I shan't go into the specifics, except that this is a term from behavioural economics.

Now all of a sudden I began having the urge to rattle again, like a rattle-snake that feels endangered - though not sure by what ominous forces out there, so I wrote the following to Bird to thank him for his inspiration to his 'intellectual entertainer' aka Me:

Interesting notion they have there, using an oxymoron of sorts to frame understanding of conflicting selves (now isn't this so similar to the notion of finding out our own 'identities' - who we are - which keep evolving over time), especially in an age of Reason overdose where we usually end up in logical antimony. But I'd wish they take the concept further, and try testing it as a theoretical proposition for sociology and political studies. I mean, if we simply return to this stage of societal transition in Singapore, aren't we often 'torn apart' by how we practise 'self-censorship' in the things we say? On one hand we wonder if we are being brainwashed by political hegemony; on the other we feel that is the best way to achieve functionalist notions of 'social cohesion and stability'. Any 'critical' Singaporean will end up in such a state that can be paradoxical at times, more so for a civil servant-to-be. It boils down to the same line of argument they had in the movie 'The Duchess': Is there such a thing as 'limited freedom'? Realize that 'libertarian paternalism' is somewhat the other side of a coin, at least in terminology. I think nowadays they've come to embrace complexity theories and reject notions that one can forecast and project possibilities of the future through linear deductions.. But my brain is still not capable of that so I shall stick to what I believe and see for now. At the end, I think where the government leads us will still be key. Power or otherwise, without dictatorship I think Singaporeans will still be pretty well off living in paradoxes as above which they'll seldom care about when they are engrossed in the superficial aspects of life. What is generally scary about young people, though, is that they easily reject whole-sale pretty everything in a logical chain when they are not happy with one element in that chain. Not happy with PAP, so everything the government says, they start looking for loopholes and reacts with sacarsm that is pretty 'kopi-tiam' in nature, except it spills over into the cyberworld. Scary thing if this trend spreads faster than educational policies can deal with it, isn't it.. How fast does it take to foster a 'comment and click' mentality, as opposed to an educational programme for teachers' guidance? Moreover, teens no longer want to listen to their elders, isn't it.. Unless those elders 'clique' with what they think and then gradually make them aware of the drawbacks of 'click' without responsibility.

I know, or at least hope, that our think-tanks are doing something to help resolve the dilemmas I see that are forming the undercurrents of change and call for greater 'liberalization' in our society. Functionalism, conflict theory, critical theory.. None seems sophisticated enough in this day and age - or is it that I have been unconsciously 'interpellated' into the post-modern discourse? Yet deep down I know that I am being pragmatic, and precisely because of pragmatism, I have absolutely no idea how to propose solutions to all these social trends that are constituting the reality I see. Perhaps, we do need more crises to pull people together, just like the recession happening at this moment. Yet, we cannot possibly starve people because we don't want them to think about higher-level needs. So, a return to Power that is more intricate, a power that is 'libertarian paternalistic' - or which at least appears to be so even to the discerning minds? Perhaps, but can we find politicians with that level of tact and sophistication? The new Cabinet members don't seem to give me that impression, yet.