This should be interesting.

Sunstein is, of course, absolutely right about "libertarian paternalism," even if that is a horribly chosen turn of phrase.

Real libertarians, in contrast to Sunstein, totally ignore human nature, instead preferring to live in pie in the sky lala land.

This should be a sort of interesting set of posts. I predict on major theme will be realist versus idealist views of human nature.

Given the quality of VC lately, I expect these latest contributions by Sunstein to be significantly above the mean.

"Real libertarians, in contrast to Sunstein, totally ignore human nature"

Then I guess Sowell doesn't qualify as a "real libertarian?" What an odd comment to make.

Biggest problem I see with using "human nature" to restrict guide choice, is that the understanding of human nature used is inevitably flawed and biased. It must be flawed, because our understanding of human nature is narrow and limited. It must be biased, because it will be a product of the political process.

Of course, you're correct. It is much more flawed to watch how real people work in the real world, and use those results (empirical studies). I think it is much better to allow the giant big heads of academe to posit what rational actors would do in any given situation, and craft the rules accordingly. Brilliant!

Hmm, there are two teaching styles: "Sage on Stage" and "Guide by the Side". Wonder which Prof. Sunstein will offer this week? If he has a history of viewing VC, it might be different than if he just drops by to impart his wisdom. Looking forward to seeing his posts, though.

One of the things about Sunstein's libertarian paternalism is that it seems to focus a lot more on the latter than the former. That is, their work is about making libertarian situations more paternalistic, rather than vice versa. They'll talk about forcing people to choose if they want to opt out of putting money into a 401-k, but not so much about, e.g., allowing (let alone forcing) people to choose if they want to opt out of Social Security. They want to force people to choose to opt out of donating organs, but not to allow/force people to choose to opt out of the FDA's regulatory scheme for drugs.

Just reading the summary of the book's argument makes my stomach turn. Somebody who thinks he knows what's best for me wants to use government to structure my choices? I'd throw this book into the fireplace before I got 10 pages into it.

When the description of his book makes him sound like the cartoonish villian of an Ayn Rand novel, I somehow think he should be avoiding libertarian-friendly blogs. Surely there's a Remembering Mussolini blog somewhere where this paternalism will be welcomed. Posting it here just seems like trolling.

David,

I think you are confusing issues (hopefully not deliberately). To use Social Security (as an example), society has determined, through the functioning of a democratic government, that this program will be in place. To allow opt out would end up destroying the program as has been covered ad infinitum. If that's what you want, then fine! But that's not the same as the other issues you mention (how about opt out for income tax... or opt out for sales tax...)

This is different than, say, organ donation or 401Ks. In those cases, research has shown that people are choosing options that are poorer for them (and/or society as a whole) not because it is their rational choice, but rather because of how the choice is presented. Present the choice differently, they make a better choice. But they still have the same option.

IOW- you can still choose to donate your organs or not, but instead of opt-in, it's opt-out.

That's pretty inaccurate. Libertarianism is basically one of the few political philosophies - if not the only one - that recognizes the realities of human nature.

I'm talking about human nature in the real world. Not human nature in theory.

One of the things about Sunstein's libertarian paternalism is that it seems to focus a lot more on the latter than the former. That is, their work is about making libertarian situations more paternalistic, rather than vice versa. They'll talk about forcing people to choose if they want to opt out of putting money into a 401-k, but not so much about, e.g., allowing (let alone forcing) people to choose if they want to opt out of Social Security. They want to force people to choose to opt out of donating organs, but not to allow/force people to choose to opt out of the FDA's regulatory scheme for drugs.

Could it be because these policies you suggest, besides being totally undesirable, are also politically impossible?

I can see default rules regarding 401k plans being adoped in the real world. I do not see opting out of social security or FDA regulatory schemes as being even remotely possible.

I think this your post is another great example of the libertarian obsession with the ideal over the real.

So Sunstein wrote this pseudonymously. Never would've thunk it.

Chris24601,

David Borgenicht is my cousin; I assure you he is not Cass Sunstein in disguise.

There is going to be a "choice architecture".

There is NO question about that.

Do YOU want the ONLY ones deciding what the defaults are to be from the LEFT!!!!

If you don't get into the game you can't win.

The reason this is important is simple. People are LAZY. No secret. No studies need to be performed. Everyone knows it. Let's make USE of it.

Ah, you've got to love the left. Sunstein et al. again try to tell us lesser rubes that the higher intellects should make decisions for us. Is this guy on Obama's staff?