[ExI] question for libertarians

Sun Oct 23 23:23:59 UTC 2016

 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.)  dan

If nudges are applied according to Thaler in his book, Nudge, they would be
subject to Rawl's publicity principle:  if you are the government, you have
to tell the people what you are doing and if they disapprove they can
remove you at the ballot box, at least in theory.

I advise getting the book, which can be had for $3.40 delivered from
Abebooks.  They really did spend a lot of time arguing one way and another
about trying to help people while remaining libertarian, and you can argue
with them.  How about this one?

It has long been known that if, in a grocery store, you put a cart at the
end of an aisle with items in it, especially if they are an assortment of
items, people will think they are on sale despite that there is no sign
which says so, and sales increase.  I don't think they have stopped this
practice.

It would seem that this is unethical according to the way I take the book,
Nudge.  This violates the publicity principle.  Yet should they put up a
sign that says that they are not on sale? This seems really stupid to me.
Of course they could always have them on sale, or not put out a cart to
start with, but some people would call this simple marketing. (Are all
marketing techniques nudges and vice versa?) Of course in some sense it is
also a nudge, but with marketing it's always caveat emptor - you know that
sellers are going to try to get you to buy.  There is no lie here - the
only deception occurs in the mind of the buyer.  Or is it a lie?

bill w

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161023/66fb976c/attachment.html>