3 ms·

I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia: > Libertarian paternalism is similar to asymmetric paternalism, which refers to policies designed to help people wh

I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia: > Libertarian paternalism is similar to asymmetric paternalism, which refers to policies designed to help people who behave irrationally and so are not advancing their own interests, while interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. Though it sounds like that’s not the same conclusion you came to. Maybe you can say more. > interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. The problem I have with this is most bad actors are quite rational, and the most successful not only play within the rules, they shape them (regulatory capture).

jacobr1 3y ago
>I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. The position is that many people do _not_ act rationally. So the argument is make the choices that are best for most the default, but at the same time don't force that choice, for those that would pick an alternative. It does set up an incentive to influence that choice, but often that is the case we already have today. Making the choice of a default explicitly part of how both public and private services are delivered, including both the data-driven analysis of better outcomes and the UX work expose the default seems to be worth it. The alternative is a choice still getting made, but getting made either arbitrarily or with more nefarious influence.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  yeah that's my interpretation too - government ensures defaults are best interests of (almost all) individuals and yet allows deviation by choice. It's like, you can choose to sign up for adverts on facebook and youtube but they should be off by default (ok maybe that's my paternalism).

jacobr1 3y ago

>I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. The position is that many people do _not_ act rationally. So the argument is make the choices that are best for most the default, but at the same time don't force that choice, for those that would pick an alternative. It does set up an incentive to influence that choice, but often that is the case we already have today. Making the choice of a default explicitly part of how both public and private services are delivered, including both the data-driven analysis of better outcomes and the UX work expose the default seems to be worth it. The alternative is a choice still getting made, but getting made either arbitrarily or with more nefarious influence.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
yeah that's my interpretation too - government ensures defaults are best interests of (almost all) individuals and yet allows deviation by choice. It's like, you can choose to sign up for adverts on facebook and youtube but they should be off by default (ok maybe that's my paternalism).