Pajamas Media

41 Comments

1. Sara for America:

Good grief, just how many Offices of This and That do we actually have in this country?

Feb 10, 2009 - 3:19 am 2. Michael O'Brien:

As a Libertarian myself, I pray that God will deliver us from the tyranny of good intentions. The last thing I want is the government nudging anything or anyone.

Feb 10, 2009 - 3:37 am 3. venividivici:

This is where libertarians tend to lose me. One of my jobs required me to learn a lot about the 401(k) market and, quite frankly, without the government setting a default, most young people wouldn’t start saving until later in life, thus losing the power of compounding gains, thus increasing the chance they’d agitate for more Social Security benefits later. Sometimes externalities are real and there is a “public good” at stake in individual decision-making. The “slippery slope” argument works in a lot of contexts, but in contexts where the gains or losses from an individual’s bad decision at point in time A reverberate throughout the rest of that individual’s life and by extension into my life via the need for future subsidies from people who make the right decisions at point A, I say it is a good idea for the government to provide that “nudge”.

Also, ask all the Baby Boomers who are nearing retirement with nearly nothing in their 401(k) due to the fact that they didn’t save from the initial time they were offered the opportunity and most of them will say they wish someone had diverted a few percentage points of their salary into the program by default. If government is going to be a “necessary evil”, at least let it accomplish some goal we can all agree is good.

Feb 10, 2009 - 4:40 am 4. RE:

What makes progressives so intolerable is their intolerance and disrespect for freedom of choice and individual liberty. They are self righteous busybodies that leave carnage in their wake – deconstructionists that leave all they touch in pieces.

Feb 10, 2009 - 4:49 am 5. Joef:

The Obama HOPE poster? Just strike out the P and put in an S. Says it all.

Feb 10, 2009 - 6:02 am 6. Bilgeman:

Mr. Hsieh:

“If the government decides that saving money is good, it would automatically divert a percentage of your paycheck into a savings account in your name unless you explicitly declined.”

Bad example to use in a good piece.

The LAST thing the government wants anyone to do is to SAVE money.

Our economic crisis can be boiled down to two realities…overextended credit and a credit crunch.

Lord…people are trying to save money now, and to listen to that fellow who claims to have been born in Hawaii, you’d think the world was going to end because of it.

No, the government wants and needs you to spend yourself into debt,(this generates tax revenue, y’see)…until it’s time to retire.
THEN they want to get on their high horse and reprove you for not saving anything for it.(Because then you eat tax revenues).

Feb 10, 2009 - 6:09 am 7. Thomas:

I prefer “the Nuge”. Go Ted!

Feb 10, 2009 - 6:27 am 8. George Cochran:

“I won!” May God have mercy on us.

Feb 10, 2009 - 6:38 am 9. savage24:

We do not need a nudge here or a nudge there, we need smaller government. One that believes in the Constitution of the United Statea of America

Feb 10, 2009 - 7:47 am 10. Cybergeezer:

WWTMD? (What would the mullahs do?) Probably paying attention to how “His Emptiness” is trying to take over America by decree.

Feb 10, 2009 - 8:43 am 11. Self-hating Boomer:

As a Libertarian myself, I pray that God will deliver us from the tyranny of good intentions.

It’s not entirely clear to me that good intentions are behind this. Just like with carbon indulgences, this pseudo-libertarian approach gives the rich a pass (albeit with a price) to sin while the lumpen have to conform. The absolute bottom of society is also exempt from government mandated virtue, since they have nothing to lose.

I’d rather see honest out-of-the-closet totalitarianism than this faux liberty.

Feb 10, 2009 - 10:18 am 12. DonnaB:

At one time I supported the Libertarian movement, working on a few campaigns and newsletters, but I have found it to be too fractured with many self-styled Libertarians wanting to introduce Big Nanny or anarchy into the mix that I have since rejected it.

The nudge that will be a shove is socialized medicine – complete with implanted info and tracking device so Obamas czar in Washington can “advise” your doctor how (or if) to treat you. Think forced abortions (like China) and euthenasia for the old folks. Something for everyone.

The scariest thing to me as a Canadian living with our version of a failed socialized “health care” system is WHERE are we going to go for our health care after Obama destroys yours?

Our failed system, (MM’s Sicko notwithstanding), costs upwards of 50% of the governments budget and still the waiting lines for rationed “care” are growing. People die waiting in emergency rooms. If you can find a doctor who is taking more patients, which is the only way you can see a specialist, you must wait months. MRI’s and CAT scans are not readily available for lack of equipment. Apart from the government spending on this travesty, you also recieve a monthly bill to pay your “share” whether you use their system or not. It is far from free. However, you can pay out of pocket for certain treatments such as iv chelation from a private practitioner (who are vilified by the College of Physicians and Surgeons). We are not allowed to have private insurance to cover the costs. If you or a loved one are hospitalized, you must make sure they get food and clean their room yourself. Recently, alarmed over the rampant number of infections people were subjected to in hospitals – and after months of expensive “study”, the recomendation finally emerged. Hospital staff were instructed to wash their hands! Not sure how many millions this revelation cost.
Drugs and surgery are the automatic treatments of choice – this is where the money is. When our past Liberal government with connections to Connought Laboratorys imported tainted blood from Arkinsaw prisons, (while Clinton was govenor), causing the sickness of hundreds, the government promised compensation. They dragged it on until the majority of these people died.

I’m sorry you’re stuck with Obama and a Dem congress. I’m hoping for impeachment in the near future.

Feb 10, 2009 - 10:46 am 13. sonoffar:

So a gentile nudge and the opt option will be coming from the 800 pound gorilla that has taken up residence in my living room?

Feb 10, 2009 - 12:40 pm 14. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

This is really nothing new. The income tax code, as well as other byzantine tax regulations intended to provide “incentives”, is this same kind take-your-lunch-money-away-and-give-it-back-if-you-give-me-a-blow-job illusion of choice.

Now start blowing. Or else.

Feb 10, 2009 - 1:19 pm 15. TL:

#3 makes the usual circular liberal argument. When people make bad choices that impacts everyone else “via the need for future subsidies” so let’s regulate their choices in the firt place. It is unthinkable to liberals that people should live with their own mistakes.

Feb 10, 2009 - 2:10 pm 16. soupcon:

Cass Sustein has never been a libertarian.He’s a mild mannered leftist that can be charming and reasonable in interviews,but he’s always been very statist and activist in his use of the law.What he’s advocating now is sneaky and will sound thoughtful, until the full implications are examined.

Feb 10, 2009 - 4:35 pm 17. ic:

Paternalistic or patronizing?

Feb 10, 2009 - 6:21 pm 18. Government Jobs:

Nice topic! Thanks for posting. I wanna share this to my friends.

Feb 10, 2009 - 7:28 pm 19. David S:

The government is already nudging people and the economy in many ways. It is actually inevitable that government action will impact private decisions. Is there something wrong with analyzing the impacts, and working to make them better?

Peace.

DS

Feb 10, 2009 - 8:01 pm 20. Galileo Blogs:

Thank you, Paul, for identifying the statist thinking (”Don’t worry — we’ll do your thinking for you”) that underlies the so-called “libertarian paternalism.”

Allowing others to forcefully tell us what to do is the first nudge towards dictatorship. If we have a right to our own life, that means no one has the right to “nudge” us, whether it is for our alleged good or not. If our government explicitly endorses this premise, much worse will follow. Behind every “nudge” is a saber-point.

Feb 11, 2009 - 5:06 am 21. Donnie:

Your argument against Sunstein’s arguments assumes that the majority of American’s are intelligent and rational. I’m not quite convinced that this is true.

Perhaps the majority of people really do need government to be a parent, who will show them the proper direction, while leaving them free to choose another direction.

You do make a good point about “filing the proper forms to purchase a Toyota instead of a GM”. The effort to opt out should be kept to a minimum. Perhaps a simple Yes/No on an annual electronic form, filed along with your taxes.

Feb 11, 2009 - 7:26 am 22. Amy Nasir:

The only thing that will get us out of the mess is simply this — for each of us to realize that we possess the power to be self-sufficient and self-supporting. And that it is our moral right, as individuals, to stand up and proclaim ourselves FREE men and women. I have a right to my own life — and so do you! Stop lamenting about the “sheep,” and start improving your own life.

It’s not up to YOU to do anything about so-called “stupid” people. People in general have a right to be left alone, and YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to nudge, push or force them into the “good life.” I may be doing something wrong or not living up to YOUR standard, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!! So get off my back and live your own life and STOP MEDDLING!!!

To fully understand this, you have the power to study and apply the correct moral philosophy of rational self-interest. You can start with reading what’s on aynrand.org.

Perhaps you too will take responsibility for your own life, and one day we can meet and be friends!

Feb 11, 2009 - 9:33 am 23. Seerak:

Your argument against Sunstein’s arguments assumes that the majority of American’s are intelligent and rational. I’m not quite convinced that this is true.

Perhaps the majority of people really do need government to be a parent, who will show them the proper direction, while leaving them free to choose another direction.

Wrong. Dr. Hsieh assumes no such thing. His point would remain standing even if we were a nation of “Homer Simpsons”.

Even if the majority of people needed a “nudge” because they are too stupid to live, it is still morally wrong and politically dangerous for the government to arrogate that role to itself.

The point of liberty is not to accomodate the Homer Simpsons of the world, in any case. The point of liberty is that everyone gets what is coming to them. Those of us who do things right, should be free to keep the results; those of us who are irrational — the same.

Or to put it int terms that are familiar in the current situation: private profits, privatize losses.

Feb 11, 2009 - 11:11 am 24. Seerak:

Your argument against Sunstein’s arguments assumes that the majority of American’s are intelligent and rational. I’m not quite convinced that this is true.

Perhaps the majority of people really do need government to be a parent, who will show them the proper direction, while leaving them free to choose another direction.

Dr. Hsieh’s main point is not contingent upon how many “Homer Simpsons” there are. Even if the majority of people needed a “nudge” because they are too stupid to live, it is still morally wrong and politically dangerous for the government to arrogate that role to itself.

The emphasis on stupid people is a pretty big clue to the contempt that paternalists of all stripes feel for people at large.

The point of liberty is not to accomodate the Homer Simpsons of the world, in any case. The point of liberty is that everyone gets what is coming to them. Those of us who do things right, should be free to keep the results; those of us who are irrational — the same.

Or to put it in terms that are familiar in the current situation: privatize profits, privatize losses.

Feb 11, 2009 - 11:14 am 25. Donnie:

Those of us who do things right, should be free to keep the results; those of us who are irrational — the same.

I completely agree with you on this point; however, when the “Homer Simpsons” act irrationally, they will “vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” I see this as inevitable, so why not simply nudge them to act in the manner that is in their best interests from the beginning? This should make things better for everyone.

You may argue that individuals are rational, and always act in their best interests, but I think if you look at the state of our country today, you will find that this is not true (see: excessive borrowing by consumers, shortsighted actions of many high-level executives).

Feb 11, 2009 - 11:38 am 26. Seerak:

I completely agree with you on this point; however, when the “Homer Simpsons” act irrationally, they will “vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”

This is the innate flaw of unlimited majority rule, i.e. democracy. I am not talking about democracy, I am talking about a free society. The solution: enact a constitutional republic, where the government’s prerogative (and thusly, the power of the vote) is sharply constrained to the one narrow purpose for which government is suited: to protect individual rights. That means: the government can only make sure that nobody interferes with someone else getting what’s coming to them. It is forbidden to engage in such interference itself, no matter who votes for what.

I see this as inevitable, so why not simply nudge them to act in the manner that is in their best interests from the beginning?

Decided by whom? By what standards? By what right?

You may argue that individuals are rational, and always act in their best interests, but I think if you look at the state of our country today, you will find that this is not true (see: excessive borrowing by consumers, shortsighted actions of many high-level executives).

Both I and Dr. Hsieh have explained why this would be irrelevant even if it were true. It should be clear that if people were that stupid, giving some people power over others is MORE dangerous, not less; in the society I describe, your screwup is confined to you and your immediate associates.

A screwup in the “nudging” department hurts a TON of people. Paternalism AMPLIFIES error, it does not reduce it. Being given government power will not make Cass Sunstein any smarter.

Witness the current consequences of the CRA “nudge”, among many others.

Feb 11, 2009 - 12:08 pm 27. Seerak:

Also Donnie, since you are missing a lot of obvious points, I should add this one: the uninterrupted flow of consequences (”what’s coming to us”) ensures the maximum selection against the irrational in favor of the rational, and affords the irrational the greatest incentive to smarten up. Banks that lent poorly get liquidated; those that lent well, do the liquidating, etc.

Feb 11, 2009 - 12:11 pm 28. Amy Nasir:

#25. Donnie: “…they will “vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” I see this as inevitable…”

This is a philosophical mistake based on the premise that people cannot be changed, persuaded or reasoned with, and that they don’t have free will — in other words, people’s opinions and actions are just as immutable as mountains and tornados. Think of it this way — there is a huge distinction between the man-made (people’s thoughts and their results in practice and production) and the metaphysically given (the non-man-made like trees, nature, lightning, caves, animals).

This is a mistake that has been made throughout history, so you are not alone. The conclusion to draw from this distinction is that you should not see people’s thoughts and actions as “inevitable.” They are changeable through rational persuasion. Barring extreme cases and a fractional handful of people, human beings are rational and have free will AND are good, decent, right-respecting people. Most people are mixed up, but not unreasonable when faced with clear information. They want to live and be happy, and they want to know how to sustain this state.

People trade, play and interact fairly and rationally every single day. From driving home and not getting hit, to getting a paycheck on time, to enjoying good, trusting friendships.

In order to learn what ideas to persuade with, I highly recommend you visit aynrand.org now. Philosophy, and your view of man (other people), are extremely important to identify, as it DOES relate to your life. Don’t just sit there and wallow in the unhappy falsehood that people are sheep — realize that you have a voice and use it to educate people of their own sovereignty and individual rights and power of reason. People can understand this — just as Paul Hsieh and I do. You can too. To borrow from an unnamed source — YES, WE CAN!

If you want a better world, IT STARTS WITH YOU!

Feb 11, 2009 - 12:56 pm 29. venividivici:

TL:

#3 makes the usual circular liberal argument. When people make bad choices that impacts everyone else “via the need for future subsidies” so let’s regulate their choices in the firt place. It is unthinkable to liberals that people should live with their own mistakes.
Feb 10, 2009 – 2:10 pm

TL, believe me, I am as far from liberal as possible, but there is ample evidence from experiments that people in general make systematic mistakes in certain areas of life, including how much they save for retirement versus how much they use for current consumption. Since those people aren’t just going to die off without at least trying to get some politician to pander to them in the future when they are retired and have no money, I do think it’s a good public policy to put safeguards in place to ensure that people start to save as soon as it is feasible. The power of compounding gains is lost on most people precisely at the time it is most useful, i.e., when they are young, but if we had workers contribute just a few thousand dollars in their early 20’s, the net portfolio value would be the same as someone contributing tens of thousands of dollars in their 30’s. Plus, unlike Social Security, you actually own your 401(k) and can leave it to heirs, borrow against it for a rainy day or a house.

There are many, many places where liberals proclaim something to be a “public good” or a “negative externality” or “market failure” where I think they are full of it, but this is not one.

Mark my words, millions upon millions of Baby Boomers are going to be clamoring for retirement income on top of what Social Security promised them when they realize that they’ve completely screwed up their retirement planning. There is no way that your principled libertarianism is going to survive that political onslaught. I guarantee you will be outvoted. It’ll be bad enough that one generation does this to the rest of us, but it’ll be worse if it keeps on happening with Generations X and Y.

Feb 11, 2009 - 5:06 pm 30. Seerak:

Since those people aren’t just going to die off without at least trying to get some politician to pander to them in the future when they are retired and have no money, I do think it’s a good public policy to put safeguards in place to ensure that people start to save as soon as it is feasible.

Translation: the moral cannibalism of mob rule is an absolute not to be questioned, but individual rights are a nicety to be disposed of by the mob as it sees fit.

believe me, I am as far from liberal as possible

You openly espouse both paternalism and collectivism, which are key characteristics of both the Left and conservatism, so this is a distinction of no substance.

It’ll be bad enough that one generation does this to the rest of us, but it’ll be worse if it keeps on happening with Generations X and Y.

How does pandering to the Boomers induce the next two generations to say “no thanks”? Brother, you asked for it!

There is no way that your principled libertarianism is going to survive that political onslaught.

“If ye love wealth better than LIBERTY, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of FREEDOM, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen”- Sam Adams

Feb 11, 2009 - 7:29 pm 31. KPO'M:

Venividivici, I’ve been saving in a 401K plan voluntarily for 12 years now, since I entered the workforce. Of course, in that time, I’ve enjoyed a negative cumulative return after 3 bear markets (2000-2001, 2004, 2007-?), so arguably those starting to save now have lost nothing compared to me, except the ability to invest more tax-free. That said, I still do have most of my principal that I set aside. But the issue with “forced” or “nudged” savings is that it insulates people from their own decisions. I can accept the risk that I took back in 1996 when I started investing that stocks go down as well as up. However, not everyone is that sophisticated. I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve seen on boards to the effect that “everything I made in my 401K until 2007 I lost last year.” How many “Homer Simpsons” forced to save for 4 decades will demand a guaranteed return?

Feb 11, 2009 - 9:59 pm 32. venividivici:

Seerak,

I’m not completely convinced you understood what I said. I said that the reason it makes sense to auto-enroll (the technical term for what is now allowed in 401k plans) employees into these plans is that young people do not seem to realize the potential for compounding gains and apply too high a personal discount rate to consumption over savings. So long as the plan also allows you to opt out if your employer auto-enrolls you, which they all do, that is fine to me. You don’t seem to realize that your the one setting up the conditions for mob rule with your absolutism. Unless you have some convenient way of disposing of millions of starving Baby Boomers (and, in the future Gen Xers) who have failed to save for retirement and are no longer needed in the workforce, asking people to set aside a small amount of choice today for a more secure (cue up your quote about those seeking security over liberty deserving neither) tomorrow is the more prudent choice for someone setting public policy. Seriously, as a thought experiment, ask yourself what the situation is going to be like in 15 years when there are 30 million Boomers in retirement who’ve just run out of money. What do you think they are going to do, just lay down in their beds and die off peacefully? I’m not pandering to Boomers at all, I’m saying that what’s going to happen with the Boomers is already baked into the cake precisely because when 401k plans were first implemented, no one realized that the people who get the most benefit from them, i.e. the young, were not using them fully. That’s why Sunstein’s proposal to make saving in a 401k plan makes sense. People don’t really miss the 3% of their pay that gets auto-defaulted into the plan, but it pays huge dividends to them in the future.

KPO’M,

Guaranteed returns can be built into 401k plans by making annuities one of the investment options. I’ve actually studied this quite a bit, too. Other alternatives to annuities are starting to come onstream, like guaranteed minimum return mutual funds where an insurance company partners with a mutual fund, they design a portfolio that can be hedged in the derivatives markets so that if the portfolio goes down, the derivatives hedging it go up by a nearly equal amount (there is no such thing as a perfect hedge). In the near future (provided the government doesn’t do something stupid like convert our 401ks into guaranteed return plans run by the government, which some have proposed),nearly all 401ks will have more limited investment options that can be guaranteed to provide a minimum return, in exchange for paying a fee to the company providing the guarantee.

Feb 12, 2009 - 4:52 am 33. Mr. B:

Paul,

I’m worried that you are misrepresenting what “nudges” are all about. What I’m hearing is that “Government pushes (and worse) are really bad, so I don’t like nudges.” I don’t think many people, including Cass, would argue that government “pushes” and restrictions on choice lead to optimal behavior.

The whole essence of a nudge is that the private choice is beneficial and must be preserved, that context and defaults (which must be set to some option anyway) have an illegitimate influence on people’s choices, and that even when defaults are set, it must remain absolutely *easy* to opt out in order to preserve choice.

The principle really only comes into play when there is evidence that people are actually making choices without really putting their thinking caps (acting on auto pilot, and we all do it).

You may be right that the slope may slip–any good thing taken to excesses and extremes can be–but arguing that government *restrictions* on private choice are bad does not answer the argument that nudges can be helpful.

As a libertarian familiar with Cass’s work, I don’t think Obama could have (let alone would have) appointed a better individual for this position. Sunstein is much more of a Chicago School thinker than you give him credit for (he spent less than one year at Harvard, and nearly 30 at the University Chicago).

By the way, I’m a big fan of your “Geek Press” blog–keep up the good work.

Feb 12, 2009 - 5:34 am 34. Seerak:

I’m not completely convinced you understood what I said. I said that the reason it makes sense to auto-enroll (the technical term for what is now allowed in 401k plans) employees into these plans is that young people do not seem to realize the potential for compounding gains and apply too high a personal discount rate to consumption over savings.

I know I understood what you said, because I recognize the exact same premise in your latest post as in the earlier one: that the possibility that some people may act against their own self-interest is sufficient moral justification for government to make choices for them for their own good.

What you are doing is avoiding the moral problems and trying to argue for it on the basis that it is “practical”. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. If it is immoral, it is also impractical — the immorality of “nudging” and the wider ideology behind it, is why they fail in practice.

And that’s the point here: this is not a problem of “intelligence”, but one of morality.

The people who refuse to act in their own self-interest are not doing so because they are too “stupid” to know. They do so because they expect someone else to handle it for them. They have been told all their lives that we have moral obligations to each other, obligations that transcend our right to choose… so they expect to pay their taxes and then have everything taken care of for them when they get older.

Who told them that it worked that way? Who taught them that they were morally *entitled* in that fashion? Who fed them these lies? The paternalists did. You did, sir. This “nudging” is an expression of the same altruistic “for their own good” morality that set the problem up in the first place!

The ones who set up the conditions for mob rule are the paternalists of all stripes who encouraged generations of people to expect others to catch them when they fall… and the ones who substituted democracy for freedom, handing over to the mob the club of government.

So of course, when you then say

You don’t seem to realize that your the one setting up the conditions for mob rule with your absolutism.

… you are telling us that if the grasshopper decides to loot the ant, it’s the ant’s fault.

Such are the logical results of an inverted morality.

The problem you describe with “starving Boomers” is a real potential. It is the built-up legacy of paternalism going back as far as Herbert Croly. Pushing more paternalism as the solution is the same kind of insanity as pushing more debt as the solution to excess debt.

….

Fortunately, people are *not* stupid, and those who militantly expect to be taken care of are not a physically large group, nor are they particularly dangerous if they have no access to government power. Most Boomers I know, including my fiance, know to expect Social Security to be effectively nonexistent by they time they reach retirement age. Those who don’t have a solid retirement fund in place, expect to work longer.

Feb 12, 2009 - 12:52 pm 35. Seerak:

You may be right that the slope may slip–any good thing taken to excesses and extremes can be–but arguing that government *restrictions* on private choice are bad does not answer the argument that nudges can be helpful.

I would say that the argument that “nudges” can be helpful does not answer the argument that government restrictions in individual choice are immoral.

Feb 12, 2009 - 12:53 pm 36. Dr. T:

Paul Hsieh did not discuss a point that angers me greatly.

Over time, libertarian paternalism will become less “libertarian” and more “paternalistic.”

There absolutely is no libertarianism in the paternalistic policies recommended by Sunstein. He and others deliberately co-opted the word “libertarian” in order to destroy its meaning. This is similar to the destruction of liberalism, which now means something totally different than it did fifty years ago. Libertarians gets smeared in both directions: Sunstein says a libertarian government can direct individuals’ choices, and others say that libertarianism is the same as anarchy.

The one agreeement I have with Sunstein is that we are a country of Homer Simpsons. But, a big problem for the nanny-statists among us is that many of those Homers work for the government. So, why should the government become our parents?

Feb 12, 2009 - 4:47 pm 37. venividivici:

Seerak,

In the context of a 401k, what do you think not having someone defaulted into the program is other than a “choice” being made by the government, when it originally designed the program. The thinking was that people would recognize their self-interest and voluntarily opt in. The results is that the average Baby Boomer has less than $50K saved for a retirement that will last an average of 30 years (I know all the actuarial projections behind all this stuff, but feel free to look it up yourself) and will run out of money from savings before 7 of those years in retirement are over, even after utilizing home equity. These are the results of a “choice” that the government made to set up 401ks and not allow employers to auto-enroll their employees.

Oh, and by the way, one of the groups that pushed for auto-enrollment was the employers, even though it costs them more because now they have to match a much-larger group of employees’ contributions. Why did employers want this? BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO SEE PEOPLE WORKING FOR THEM STARVE TO DEATH IN RETIREMENT, YOU NITWIT!

you are telling us that if the grasshopper decides to loot the ant, it’s the ant’s fault.

In all seriousness, you are so blinded by ideology that you don’t see the bigger picture. The ant and the grasshopper is a zero-sum game. The “nudge” in the 401k example is not. Essentially, the “nudge” turns the grasshopper into an ant, thus precluding the Hobbesian battle for resources described in the parable.

You clearly haven’t thought these things through with any degree of thoroughness. You should just quit now.

Feb 12, 2009 - 5:02 pm 38. venividivici:

They have been told all their lives that we have moral obligations to each other, obligations that transcend our right to choose… so they expect to pay their taxes and then have everything taken care of for them when they get older.

Who told them that it worked that way? Who taught them that they were morally *entitled* in that fashion? Who fed them these lies? The paternalists did. You did, sir. This “nudging” is an expression of the same altruistic “for their own good” morality that set the problem up in the first place!

This is another great example of your inability to see the subtler points of the argument for making the default option for 401ks “contribute” versus “don’t contribute”. In point of fact, I favor a complete privatization of Social Security and the abolition of Medicare. I think that all government subsidies for consumption should come in the form of loans, at best.

Square that circle with your perception that I’m some kind of “paternalist”.

It’s like you took the saying “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him to fish and you feed him for life” and turned it into “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, tell him that fish are delicious and point him toward the ocean and that’s the best he can expect”. It’s stupid and it negates all of the benefits of even having something called “society”.

Feb 12, 2009 - 5:16 pm 39. Insufficiently Sensitive:

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man’s basic tool of survival — his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, “Don’t worry — we’ll do your thinking for you.”

Worse – it creates an unfunded obligation on you to endlessly check new regulations and to spend your own time – that’s money, Mr. Sunstein – to study, weigh the consequences, make your decision, and ensure that the proper agency is clearly informed of your decision. Mind you, that’s the necessary procedure for every such mandate which comes out of formal laws AND/OR informal ‘regulations’ from bureaus with regulatory power.

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:05 am 40. Insufficiently Sensitive:

What makes progressives so intolerable is their intolerance and disrespect for freedom of choice and individual liberty.

What? They make endless demands, by organized political means, for limitless tolerance and respect for their own sexual practices. How could we ask for more?

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:08 am 41. Seerak:

In all seriousness, you are so blinded by ideology that you don’t see the bigger picture. The ant and the grasshopper is a zero-sum game. The “nudge” in the 401k example is not. Essentially, the “nudge” turns the grasshopper into an ant, thus precluding the Hobbesian battle for resources described in the parable.

Now look who’s talking — someone who can’t see the forest for the grass!

I have made clear, many times and in addition to Dr. Hsieh, that the point is not the alleged benefit, “social” or otherwise of the “nudge”, its about the moral prerogative thereof. I am saying that no one has that prerogative, government or otherwise. No one has the moral right to turn the ant into a grasshopper without his consent (which is opt-in, by definition).

That is my primary point of disagreement. Your arguments about the alleged benefits of “nudging” presumes that it is morally OK to do so. Why is nudging moral? That’s ball’s been sitting in your court since Dr. Hsieh put it there, but you’ve been ignoring it while fanning at empty air ever since.

You raised the specter of the “Hobbesian battle for resources” story, intoning that if we didn’t “nudge” people into 401(k)’s, they’d simply loot us for it via the vote. Nudge — or else!

Is that what you think passes for a moral point?

I probably should have ignored this tangent, but I nonetheless pointed out that this potentiality was a consequence of democracy, itself born of that same wider paternalistic principle which underlies “nudging”.

You have not answered that… you instead circle back to your “subtler points” of nudging, all the while projecting ideological blindness upon me…. while carefully not seeing that my original moral challenge is still sitting there, waiting.

In point of fact, I favor a complete privatization of Social Security and the abolition of Medicare. I think that all government subsidies for consumption should come in the form of loans, at best.

Square that circle with your perception that I’m some kind of “paternalist”.

It’s not my perception; you have indicted yourself as one right here. You favor “nudging” in principle (and now, government loans? Slipping and sliding already!)

You clearly haven’t thought these things through with any degree of thoroughness. You should just quit now.

Projection is not an argument.

Feb 13, 2009 - 6:13 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: