[ExI] question for libertarians

[David Lubkin]

William Flynn Wallace wrote:

>But if the paperwork is set up so that you have 
>to opt out by checking a box, far more people 
>will participate than if you make the option to 
>opt in a box to be checked.  This is libertarian 
>paternalism.  It takes advantage of the fact 
>that whatever it is, say a new cell phone, 
>people will generally go with most of the defaults.
>
>Big difference - opt in opt out.  Now the 
>question:  is this unethical manipulation of 
>your choices?  Thaler calls this libertarian 
>paternalism - libertarian in the sense that you 
>have full sayso over your choices, and 
>paternalistic in that you are being nudged to 
>make a choice that will likely be better for you 
>in the long run. (esp. if soc. secur. goes 
>broke) Â (note that jokers like true contrarians 
>will want to change the default whether it hurts them or not)

If the paperwork doesn't disclose that not 
checking the box will result in signing me up, it 
is arguably both unethical and against a 
libertarian's Non-Aggression Principle.

Hiding this consequence by putting it at the 
other end of a URL, explaining it in bafflegab, 
or presenting it in 6 pt grey bafflegab on a grey 
background, is functionally equivalent to non-disclosure.

But if the paperwork tells me what will happen in 
large, friendly letters I don't see that it's 
either unethical or against the NAP, whether the 
default is beneficial to me or harmful.

I might find it irritating, like prices ending 
with .97 or celebrity endorsements, but 
irritating me isn't inherently unethical.


-- David.