When we have a disagreement with another person, we have two options. We can attempt to change his mind by offering facts and explanations, or we can use force. We can appeal to reason, or we can threaten harm. Unfortunately, a growing number of policy discussions resort to the latter.
Consider housing policies as an example. Many tenants and housing advocates lament the fact that many landlords do not accept housing vouchers. But rather than attempt to convince property owners to accept vouchers voluntarily, they seek to force landlords to accept vouchers. Similarly with “ban the box” laws, which make it illegal for a landlord to consider certain criminal convictions when screening prospective tenants. Rather than attempt to persuade landlords to consider the full context, advocates seek to force property owners to ignore past criminal activities.
Both of these examples, along with many others, are defended as a means to give renters more choices. And the means for doing that is to reduce the choices available to landlords.
If we truly want to promote freedom of choice, then we must accept the fact that others will not always make the choices that we desire. If we want the freedom to choose, then we must respect the freedom of others to do the same.
When others disagree with us, rather than using sticks to beat them into agreement, we must use carrotfacts and reason—to incentivize them. Rather than threaten harm for acting differently than we would prefer, we must appeal to their self-interest and convince them that our way is better.
In regard to housing policy, one of the easiest ways to dangle carrots is through tax credits or tax exemptions. For example, a landlord who accepts vouchers could receive a tax credit equal to some percentage of the annual rent for the property. This would provide an incentive to property owners, but would also leave them free to continue to refuse to accept vouchers. Similarly, with renting to convicted criminals. Tax credits might be enough of a carrot to entice some landlords to be more lenient when screening tenants.
From a practical perspective, using the stick creates resentment and animosity. Those on the receiving end often seek ways to sidestep the beating or find loopholes. And they often become criminals simply because they refused to succumb to a coercive dictate. From a moral perspective, using carrots is both virtuous and just. Using carrots allows each individual to choose what he thinks is best for him and to act accordingly.