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: And tight restrictions on where you can smoke outside have become something New Yorkers have learned to live with. The lack of moral concern for these other paternalistic laws is why White argues the critique of nudges and so-called "libertarian paternalism" needs to be more robust. The idea of libertarian paternalism was popularized five years ago by the legal theorist Cass Sunstein and the behavioral economist Richard Thaler, in their bestselling book Nudge. Sunstein and Thaler argue that policymakers can preserve an individual's liberty while still nudging him towards choices that are supposedly in his best interests. A classic example is having employees automatically enrolled in a 401 (k) retirement account, rather than asking employees to opt in to such a program. The nudge doesn't stop employees from opting out, and it encourages people to invest in their future, which Sunsteing and Thaler think is in their best interests. To this, White replies that there is no practical, objective way for an outside observer—even a super-rational economist—to define another individual's best interest. And that undermines the very premise of libertarian paternalism. Sunstein and Thaler would say anyone who does not see the benefits of saving for retirement is suffering from a cognitive failure. Similarly, the Bloomberg attempt to limit the size and location of unhealthy drinks was predicated on the idea that sugary beverages are bad for us and that people who want to drink them aren't making wise choices.