Title: Nudge, nudge | The Economist
Headings: Nudge, nudge
Paternalism and the English language
Nudge, nudge
Content: Nudge, nudge | The Economist
Paternalism and the English language
Nudge, nudge
"Libertarian paternalism" is a linguistic atrocity that must die
American politics
Democracy in America
REVISITING a hot topic from the middle of last decade, David Brooks of the New York Times weighs in on a notional debate over so-called "libertarian paternalism", the idea that, in Mr Brooks' words, " [g]overnment doesn’t tell you what to do, but it gently biases the context so that you find it easier to do things you think are in your own self-interest". Mr Brooks then calls this debate for the "libertarian paternalists": [T]he anti-paternalists win the debate in theory but the libertarian paternalists win it empirically. In theory, it is possible that gentle nudges will turn into intrusive diktats and the nanny state will drain individual responsibility. But, in practice, it is hard to feel that my decision-making powers have been weakened because when I got my driver’s license enrolling in organ donation was the default option. It’s hard to feel that a cafeteria is insulting my liberty if it puts the healthy fruit in a prominent place and the unhealthy junk food in some faraway corner... The concrete benefits of these programs, which are empirically verifiable, should trump abstract theoretical objections. But there aren't any "anti-paternalist" objections to making organ donation the default or featuring healthy food in cafeterias, because these ideas have nothing to do with paternalism. I mean, what could organ donation possibly have to do with paternalism? How can the disposition of one's organs after one dies possibly redound to the welfare of one's corpse? This whole discussion is rife with this sort of conceptual and linguistic muddle.