Blog
Enforcing ‘Constructive Behavioral Change’
A group of college presidents has sparked debate by signing a petition urging the drinking age be lowered to 18, the legally recognized age of adulthood. They argue that “twenty-one is not working” because it has “not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.”
Several groups are opposing this campaign, among them Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The president of MADD complains that “it is deeply disappointing to me that many of our education leaders would support an initiative without doing their homework on the underlying research and science.” She and others deny that “studies did not conclusively show a benefit to raising the drinking age [to 21].”
Leave aside for now the factual claims of either side and consider the nature of the debate itself. On one side is a group arguing that current laws do not “work”, citing only empirical studies as evidence for their position. On the other side is a group arguing that current laws should be left alone, citing only empirical studies as evidence for their position. In fact, both sides have the same motive (reducing drinking), but only differ on what the “research” tells us is the best way to achieve it.
This debate offers a good example of a fundamental error being committed in nearly all public policy discussions today. In general, the process proceeds as follows:
- Determine desired behavior of populace.
- Conduct various studies in order to determine what government restrictions might bring about such a “constructive behavioral change”.
- Vote to decide which method seems to be the best bet.
- In a few years, repeat.
There is a glaring problem in the above: the question of whether the government is justified in using its power to bring about “constructive behavioral change” is never raised. It is simply taken as a given that what is determined in step 1 is legitimate so long as there is enough public or legislative support.
In short, there is no discussion of rights. Does a 20-year-old have the right to drink beer? Does an 18-year-old have such a right? Given that they are adults, is the State justified in forbidding them to exercise their own judgment about whether to drink? These are the questions that those debating this issue should ask. But such questions would likely strike advocates of either position as bizarre – there are no rights under consideration here, only desired behaviors.
To see the problem with this approach, suppose for a moment that the Founding Fathers had used it when developing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Should we have the right to free speech? Well, that would depend on what speech the public desires to hear or read–thus, some studies would have to be conducted to see what the effects of allowing any given type of speech are, and whether such speech is “constructive.” Should there be a law preventing unwarranted government search and seizure of private property? Who could say–there hadn’t been conclusive research to determine the effects of that kind of policy.
Thankfully, the Founders approached law in an entirely different way: as a matter of principle. They proposed that government be instituted in order to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of fundamental principles of human nature, not as the result of a series of studies. When principles like individual rights are thrown aside, anything goes. When “constructive behavioral change” becomes the guiding standard of government policy, there is no room left for considerations of freedom.
If we want to see a principled approach to government and law, we must start by challenging the assumption that public desire for behavioral change trumps the rights of the individual.
Discussion
5 comments for “Enforcing ‘Constructive Behavioral Change’”
Post a comment
Navigation
Objectivism
The Undercurrent's cultural commentary is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand's fiction, is a systematic philosophy of life. It holds that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise his highest moral purpose, and that he flourishes only in a society that protects his individual rights.Event Calendar
I have been studying the theories of John Rawls lately and the approach this article attacks is directly influenced by them. Rawls argues that while an egalitarian equality in society is the moral ideal, instances of inequality must be allowed for in order to promote the society as a whole. While Rawls does allow his theory to bend to reality, he does not let it break. He explicitly claims that only if these inequalities promote the interests of the worst off in society should they be allowed.
While both sides of the drinking age debate agree that a society befret of irresponbile drinking is ideal and achievable, some are willing to “provide” greater personal liberty to some individuals while denying it to others. If that means that some irresponsibility must be tolerated in order to keep that vital part of society - those in their 20’s - socially lubricated, then so be it. Those in favor of doing away with this distinction do so on an identical, unprincipled, Rawlsian basis. They argue that, statistically, the victims of irresponsible drinking are not more greatly harmed by adults under 21. They go on to claim that the well being of society as a whole would be improved by allowing 18, 19, and 20 year olds the benefit of relaxing with a beer.
It is an ironic sort of pleasure to experience a real world example of a newly-understood theory pop up in such short order.
Grant, perhaps it is that once you integrate something into your knowledge, events that would normally brush by you are suddenly hooked and tinged with a deeper meaning.
God I love epistemology.
Seriously though, good article. The US government should pull it’s finger out and decide once and for all ‘when is a man an adult?’ and leave everything finalised at that.
Hey– let’s all stop being academics for a moment and look at this realistically. While victims of irresponsible drinking by those 21 and over are not less harmed, there are intuitively fewer of them. We can observe the exercise of civil rights of every venue can hurt others, but we must draw the line where the benefit of laws and restrictions outweighs the drawbacks. In freedom speech, religion, due process, arms ownership, etc. the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, but outlawing 18 year olds running around getting wasted with impunity will help us more than hurt us.
Age is the real issue in this case. The US government can’t point to an age that defines an individual as an adult because it is a gradual process. Drinking demonstrably has greater consequences than… driving? voting? Well, maybe we should think about raising the age minimum for other things. But remember, you’re never too young to pay taxes!
Undercurrent is a fun blog.
The premise of this article is delightful, I love finding others who think like myself. However, the comments are less than satisfactory, leaning toward the behavioral basis rather than the civil rights basis. Of course 18-year-olds should be allowed to drink, it is in no way the government’s duty to “ease” a person into adulthood. The drinking age argument falls under the same category as the curfew argument: nothing should be made illegal on the premise that it might lead to something illegal.
Emily,
You’ve done me a disservice! I’ve been unjustly treated! In no way was my comment leaning towards the behavioral basis. My comment was extremely impartial and informative. If anything, it was critical of those who, influenced by Rawls, support decisions decided upon a behavior basis. It used words like “unprincipled” and terms like “bend to reality but not break” to disparage Rawls and his practicing offspring.
So please, call Sean’s comment “less than satisfactory” (it is), but not mine!