Title: The Case Against Libertarian Paternalism – Reason.com
Headings: The Case Against Libertarian Paternalism
Regulation
The Case Against Libertarian Paternalism
There is no practical, objective way for an outside observer to define another individual's best interest.

Content: Depending on your preferences and risk appetite, the definition of behavior in accordance with your best interests will vary dramatically. White believes our behavior is also guided by hard-to-quantify principles, defined as "elements in decision-making that are not easily traded off against preferences and are not as responsive to opportunity cost as preferences." This argument is weaker, since principles are just strongly held preferences and are not necessarily impossible to quantify. It would be enough to say that economists simply don't have enough information about the preferences of individuals to decide what is in their best interests. As the economist F.A. Hayek observed, knowledge is so dispersed throughout society that no singular policymaker or advocacy group can collect enough information to fully understand how people would define their own preferences and principles. Practically speaking, therefore, nudges can't do what they are intended for—to design a system to help individuals overcome cognitive biases make choices in their best interests—because economists and policymakers can't understand the full range of motives that determine "best interest" when picking a retirement planning strategy to consuming a sugary beverage. Instead of helping people overcome cognitive weaknesses, policy makers are just nudging people towards the interests that policy makers prefer. " Libertarian" or not, paternalism is paternalism.