[ExI] question for libertarians

[William Flynn Wallace]

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

Ha!!  If it were, we could ban about 99% of television, esp. those we don't
watch and are forced to pay for.  Thaler appears to be working hard to make
these things palatable to libertarians, which is one reason I am asking
this group.  I'll write Thaler if I get some serious objections.  bill w

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161020/d1eb5dbe/attachment.html>