[ExI] question for libertarians

[William Flynn Wallace]

The problem with these studies that show detectable effects from subtle
nudges is that there's no way to spin a consistent story about what
consequences they would have in the real world, where we're surrounded by
prompts, intentional and unintended, pushing us in all directions.  chris

The problem with your statement is that all three of these were real world
studies with real world consequences.  Nothing is going to work on everyone
of course.  Notice that the Texas sign got a national award:  litter was
measured before and after putting up the signs.   So it was a study but the
signs are still there.

Just think of the warning lights and sounds in your car:  beep when you
have 50 miles less to go; warning light for low oil and low tire pressure -
high end cars probably have the most.  I think it is safe to say that all
of these nudges are welcome except the buzzer about the seat belt, which
nobody likes but saves lives (and insurance company money).  London has
signs at intersections saying LOOK RIGHT.  That is for tourists in whose
own country drivers are on the other side.  Saves lives.  All features of
the real world - not just studies.

So far, I seem to find few serious objections to these nudges if done right
- always with a choice or more.

bill w

No libertarian (maybe some exceptions) likes to be nannied, but I'll bet
most of humanity does and is thankful for the help.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if the original question was about requiring all firms to
>> adhere to the same policy. If so, the libertarian answer would be: No way.
>> In other words, if one firm decides they want to default to Yes (or No)
>> that shouldn't bind anyone except those who decide to work for that firm
>> under those terms. Another firm could have the opposite default or even no
>> retirement plan at all.
>>
>> Libertarian paternalism, especially the nudge idea, works under the
>> presumption that one default is good, but that presumes those who decide
>> the default for everyone -- in this example, all employees at all firms --
>> know what's best. It also presumes that because of their knowledge they
>> have a right to enforce a default on everyone. Libertarians, however,
>> should question both presumptions here -- not quibble over which default is
>> libertarian.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> ​Company policy, not laws.  "enforce a default" offers no choice.  There
> is only one default offered in the 'opt out' setting:  'in'.  In the 'opt
> in' setting the default is 'out'.  bill w
>
>
> Then the 'libertarian' answer should be obvious: each firm should be
> permitted to set its default as it please -- as I mentioned above. Think of
> a similar case: should restaurants be allowed to charge before or after
> serving the meal? Let the restaurants decide. There is no other libertarian
> position here. It's kind of like asking if the libertarian position is to
> wear a pullover or a shirt. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161022/02254db3/attachment.html>