> his basic ideology is rule by experts Not only that, but he ignores an obvious alternative that is staring him in the face. From the article (p. 5): "We can

> his basic ideology is rule by experts Not only that, but he ignores an obvious alternative that is staring him in the face. From the article (p. 5): "We can better understand the problem if we note that in ordinary life, many human beings seem to follow a simple rule: people generally do not say things unless they are true, or at least substantially true." His way of dealing with this is, as you say, rule by experts. But the obvious alternative is for people in general to stop assuming that others generally do not say things unless they are true. And the way to do that is to make people responsible for their own beliefs--to let people suffer harm if they have a false belief that they shouldn't have adopted in the first place because the source it came from was not trustworthy. Then people will have the proper incentive to actually think about the trustworthiness, or lack thereof, of various sources of information. > Maybe that idea has merit Based on the actual track record of "experts", I don't think it does. But Sunstein's own stated principles don't even leave room to ask the question. That's the real problem.