LA Law

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

There are a number of proposals that seek to remove individual choice from various personal finance decisions. For example, rather than having to opt into 401k plans as is currently the case, it has been proposed that individuals should have to opt out, or perhaps have no opt out option at all, from contributory retirement plans.

During a discussion of such proposals at this week's conference, a professor from Loyola Law School Los Angeles suggested that this type of set up allows for more freedom and autonomy, since individuals would not have to allocate time and attention toward making these decisions themselves.

Although this sort of argument surfaces periodically, I was somewhat surprised to hear it from someone presumably versed in law.

One issue with her argument involves the relatonship between specialization and freedom. If I outsource some of my decisions/activities to someone else so that I can focus on things I like to do or that I am good at, then, yes, it appears that I have entered into an arrangement that frees me up to pursue my destiny. However, to the extent that the decisions I outsource impact my well being and destiny over time, I may actually become more dependent on others. Under conditions of specialization, it is possible for liberty to decrease if the risks associated with this situation are not intelligently managed.

The more significant issue, of course, concerns the mandatory nature of such a program. If I voluntarily enter into a situation where I outsource financial decisions to others, then it is possible for me to remain in charge to manage the risks of the arrangement. But if I am forced into a situation that requires me to allocate my resources in a particular direction, then I am no longer free. Constitutionally, this is wrong and any lawyer should know this.

Perhaps my expectations for attorneys remain too high. And that's saying something.