Title: Nudge, nudge | The Economist
Headings: Nudge, nudge
Paternalism and the English language
Nudge, nudge
Content: The gist of paternalism is that it takes away choices other people think are bad for us to make. By definition, "choice-preserving" policy is not paternalistic policy. By definition, paternalistic policy is not libertarian. If "libertarian paternalism" is stipulated to be a programme of "choice-preserving decision architecture", to use Messrs Sunstein and Thaler's barbaric jargon, then "libertarian paternalism" is nothing but a profoundly confusing, completely superfluous synonym for anti-paternalism. In that case, there can be no debate between the "libertarian paternalist" and the anti-paternalist, and one side cannot win it "in theory", while the other side comes out ahead "empirically". Mr Brooks is confused. The insidiousness of "libertarian paternalism" is not in the slippery slope from the non-coercive nudge to explicitly coercive limits on individual liberty. Rather, the problem is that, as a piece of language, "libertarian paternalism" renders difficult the ability to conceive of a principled distinction between policy that respects and policy that violates individual autonomy. But there is a distinction, and the ability to defend our liberty depends on maintaining it. There is nothing novel in the idea of policy that "gently biases the context so that you find it easier to do things you think are in your own self-interest".