Hans Olav Melberg responds to critical comments on his previous work from several discussants. He offers clarifications, acknowledges shortcomings, and counters some arguments. On the issue of calculating optimal alcohol taxes, he notes that philosophical debates around concepts like compulsion and true preferences cannot be avoided and significantly impact the calculation. While scientific discussions can progress debates, complete agreement may not be reached on inherently subjective concepts. He clarifies his position on intentional but involuntary actions, acknowledging some imprecise terminology. The optimal tax rate depends on how short-term versus long-term preferences are weighed.
Hans Olav Melberg responds to critical comments on his previous work from several discussants. He offers clarifications, acknowledges shortcomings, and counters some arguments. On the issue of calculating optimal alcohol taxes, he notes that philosophical debates around concepts like compulsion and true preferences cannot be avoided and significantly impact the calculation. While scientific discussions can progress debates, complete agreement may not be reached on inherently subjective concepts. He clarifies his position on intentional but involuntary actions, acknowledging some imprecise terminology. The optimal tax rate depends on how short-term versus long-term preferences are weighed.
Hans Olav Melberg responds to critical comments on his previous work from several discussants. He offers clarifications, acknowledges shortcomings, and counters some arguments. On the issue of calculating optimal alcohol taxes, he notes that philosophical debates around concepts like compulsion and true preferences cannot be avoided and significantly impact the calculation. While scientific discussions can progress debates, complete agreement may not be reached on inherently subjective concepts. He clarifies his position on intentional but involuntary actions, acknowledging some imprecise terminology. The optimal tax rate depends on how short-term versus long-term preferences are weighed.
nity to learn and improve and in this spirit I welcome the comments made by consumption.” In fact their calculated op- timal tax rate varies from 19% to 305% de- pending on the assumptions made on these Jarl, Bergmark and Österberg. After reflect- issues. This shows that the definitions of ing on the comments the improvements terms like disease, compulsive, voluntary I offer below take three forms: Clarifica- and “true preferences” is important and tions, regrets and counter-attacks. they cannot be avoided even if we start Österberg agrees with the general line of with a very practical question. the argument in the paper. Jarl agrees with One may argue that we can reduce the some of the arguments but believes that problem by following the most recent progress has been made and that the philo- guidelines or that scientific argument will sophical issues may easily lead to unpro- lead the issue to be settled. Adopting an ductive discussions and the conclusion approach in which two economists work- that “nothing can be proven.” Bergmark ing independently will arrive at the same disagrees with several of the arguments, number is desirable, but it does not guar- but he is more optimistic than Jarl, argu- antee that the number is valid or neutral. ing that it is possible to settle the debates It just means that we have deferred to the by scientific and factual arguments. guidelines and the question then becomes To make the issues less abstract, imagine whether these are correct. that you have been asked to calculate the As for the second issue, it is important optimal tax on alcohol. This is a practical- to distinguish between the possibility of ly relevant question and in order to find settling an argument and having a scien- the optimal tax you have to calculate the tific discussion. It is certainly possible to costs and benefits associated with alcohol have scientific debates about the meaning consumption. The relevance of the philo- of terms like justice, autonomous prefer- sophical question is that if you believe ences and voluntary choice by pointing out part of the consumption is compulsive, inconsistencies or implications that the addictive, or not based on the true or au- other person has not considered. However, tonomous preferences of the person, then the possibility of rational reflection does you will end up with a higher tax rate. For not imply that we will reach an agreement instance, Pogue and Sgontz (1989) con- after the discussion. Some terms are es- clude that “Significantly higher rates may sentially contestable and they are by their be called for if it is accepted that alcohol- very nature subjective. I cannot prove that ism is a disease that causes alcoholics to my definition of justice is correct, but it is lose rather than gain utility from alcohol still possible to have a rational debate and
354 NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS V O L . 27. 2010 . 4
make some progress. In the same sense it futed” This, of course, depends on what seems difficult to scientifically prove that we mean by loss of control. To clarify, the “30% of alcohol consumption is compul- argument is not that a mysterious force sive” or that a preference for using canna- suddenly takes control over the limbs of bis should be deemed socially illegitimate the person drinking alcohol. The point is and excluded from the calculation of the that there are psychological mechanisms costs associated with drugs. like discounting which in some situa- Bergmark does not want to label the ac- tions make it much more likely that we tion made while threatened by a gun in- do things that are inconsistent with what voluntary since it is intentional. I agree we prefer most of the time. A person may that we should adopt a choice perspective want to stay sober, but occasionally give on alcohol and drug use since the actions in to temptation and go on a binge. The involved are too complex to be a reflex alcohol consumed during this binge may like hitting somebody. I also agree with his be counted as a benefit based on the short- criticism of the example of falling asleep run self, but not if we base our evaluation in the sense that it is not an action. Finally, on the preferences expressed by the long I agree that the notion of intentional but run-self. And these are not just esoteric involuntary action is incoherent. I regret philosophical problems: The optimal tax this choice of terminology. Unfortunately rate on alcohol will depend on the weight there was no gunman threatening me, so we put on the preferences expressed by I can only blame myself for writing invol- the short-run versus the long-run self. untary action when I should have written I agree with Bergmark that Ainslie has “involuntary choice”, “not freely chosen” done much to describe how the individual or even more precise – an action derived can fall for temptations, but even Ainslie from a restricted choice set. This is a grad- has used terms like “temporary preferenc- ual concept in the sense that the perceived es”, “shorter term” or “short range” inter- set of good alternatives is sometimes only ests and “higher interests.” The terminol- a little restricted and sometimes heavily ogy was in no way meant to argue against restricted. As Jon Elster (1999) has argued Ainslie or imply that we are not respon- “If the effect of a desire or a craving is to sible for our actions in the short or long make some options and consequences dis- term. Sartre's theories of false conscious- appear from the cognitive horizon of the ness, marxism and 1968 was long before agent, there is a real sense in which he 'has my academic consciousness awoke. Just no choice'”. to be on the safe side I will end by reveal- Bergmark also argues that the concept ing that I would prefer, choose and select of the individual’s “loss of control” is not Ainslie over Sartre any day, all week - with empirically supported” but “fairly well re- no preference reversal all year.
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS V O L . 27. 2010 . 4 355