[ExI] question for libertarians

[Dan TheBookMan]

You're responding to my post, but that's text from Chris -- not me. ;)

As for your final comment, so? If 'most of humanity' is not libertarian and prefers a level of dictation, that's not really much of argument -- not a strong one anyway. Your question was for libertarians, right? Now you've turned it to a question of what's popular. Well, most people believe and crave for all sorts of other things I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. If the popularity test is _the_ best test, are you about to start embracing things like believing in angels or the power of prayer?

(This relates to your earlier comment about being hard to be a libertarian. It's hard because libertarianism is hard to grasp. But it's not hard to grasp because it's full of baroque logic or really abstract math; it's hard to grasp because most people -- well, the ones who can grasp it -- are more afraid of freedom than dictation. I think they fear freedom mostly from either what others might do with it -- e.g., have gay sex, smoke pot, dance on the sabbath -- or what they fear they might do with -- e.g., make bad life choices like spending the retirement fund on having a good time.)

And I feel you've also shifted from things which might be voluntary -- a firm setting a plan default to X as opposed to Y -- to things like the state mandating the defaults. Libertarians really have trouble with things being forced -- as in all firms are required to have the same default setting. (What happens if a firm decides to say 'fuck paternalism! We're going to set our default the other way.'? Do they get fined or jailed or killed? Do men with guns show up to take their stuff or lock them in cages? That's what it really comes down to in the end.)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161023/9e6dce9d/attachment.html>