<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com">foozler83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Dan TheBookMan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danust2012@gmail.com" target="_blank">danust2012@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><div><span></span></div><div><div><span></span></div><div><div><span></span></div><div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. <br><br><div style="line-height:normal"><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Dan</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">​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</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>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. ;)</div><div><br></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">http://author.to/DanUst</a></font></div></div></div></body></html>