Libertarianism/Paternalism: False Dichotomy?

"...human beings are lazy, busy, impulsive, inert, and irrational creatures highly susceptible to predictable biases and errors. That's why they can be nudged in socially desirable directions."

In The Chronicle Review this week, Evan R. Goldstein tackles "libertarian paternalism", which advocates "nudging" people along towards the right decision, instead of letting them flounder in their own stupidity or mandating specific action through legislation. The progenitors of this new philosophy are Professors Richard H. Thaler (Behavioral Science/Econ) and Cass R. Sunstein (Law/PoliSci), coauthors of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

Sounds fishy to me. Sure, coercive legislation is bad... but these "nudges" they're talking about are crafted specifically to escape notice: exploitations of the ways in which human perception is flawed. With coercive legislation, at least you know what you're getting- the government's cards are on the table. This is a lot more subtle... and therefore a lot more dangerous.

"Sunstein argues that understanding human irrationality can improve how public and private institutions shape policy by increasing the likelihood that people will make decisions that are in their own self-interest."

Does that reek of an oxymoron to anyone else? These "nudges" don't eliminate choice, sure- but those crafting them are the ones deciding what's in the public's self-interest, not the individuals. With simple things like getting children to eat fruit and minimizing urinal spillage (examples mentioned in the article), it's hard to argue- but what about when "self-interest" isn't so clear cut?

Sunstein gets this much right: "For too long, the United States has been trapped in a debate between the laissez-faire types who believe markets will solve all our problems and the command-and-control types who believe that if there is a market failure then you need a mandate." Congrats, Professor Sunstein, you know as much about American politics as any half-brained freshman here at Yale.

I remain skeptical of any "paternalism". The whole point of libertarianism is to admit how much we don't know. I wrote about how easily this backfires back in March; what happened to epistemological modesty, people?

Besides which... I want to see the stupid people fail.