Download
1 / 18
E N D
Nudge Lecture 11
J.S. Mill On Liberty “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Q: Under what conditions is it (potentially) permissible to coerce someone to do something? A: When doing so would prevent harm to others.
The Cafeteria Case 1. Arrange the food to make the students best off, all things considered. 2. Choose the food order at random. 3. Try to arrange the food to get the kids to pick the same foods theywould choose on their own. 4. Maximize the sales of the items from the suppliers thatare willing to offerthe largest bribes. 5. Maximize profits, period.
“A choice architecthas the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions … There are many parallels between choice architecture and more traditionalforms of architecture. A crucial parallel is that there is no such thingas a "neutral" design … As we shall see, small and apparently insignificant details can have majorimpacts on people's behavior.A good rule of thumb is to assume that"everything matters.”
Libertarian Paternalism “The libertarian aspect of our strategies lies in the straightforward insistencethat, in general, people should be free to do what they like-and toopt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so. To borrow aphrase from the late Milton Friedman, libertarian paternalists urge thatpeople should be ‘free to choose’.”
“The paternalistic aspect lies in the claim that it is legitimate for choice architectsto try to influence people's behavior in order to make their liveslonger, healthier, and better. In other words, we argue for self-consciousefforts, by institutions in the private sector and also by government, tosteer people's choices in directions that will improve their lives. In our understanding,a policy is “paternalistic” if it tries to influence choices in away that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves.”
“Those who reject paternalism often claim that human beings do aterrific job of making choices, and if not terrific, certainly better than anyoneelse would do (especially if government).Whether or not they have ever studied economics, many peopleseem at least implicitly committed to the idea of homo economicus) or economicman - the notion that each of us thinks and chooses unfailinglywell, and thus fits within the textbook picture of human beings offered byeconomists. If you look at economics textbooks, you will learn that homo economicuscan think like Albert Einstein, store as much memory as IBM'S BigBlue, and exercise the willpower of Mahatma Gandhi.”
Libertarian paternalism is a relatively weak, soft, and nonintrusive typeof paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantlyburdened. If people want to smoke cigarettes, to eat a lot of candy, tochoose an unsuitable health care plan, or to fail to save for retirement, libertarianpaternalists will not force them to do otherwise-or even makethings hard for them. Still, the approach we recommend does count as paternalistic, because private and public choice architects are not merely tryingto track or to implement people's anticipated choices. Rather, they areself-consciously attempting to move people in directions' that will maketheir lives better. They nudge.
A False Assumption and Two Misconceptions “The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the timemake choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are betterthan the choices that would be made by someone else. We claim that thisassumption is false-indeed, obviously false. In fact, we do not think thatanyone believes it on reflection.” The chess player example.
“The first misconception is that it is possible to avoid influencing people’s choices. In many situations, some organization or agent must make achoice that will affect the behavior of some other people. The second misconception is that paternalism always involves coercion.In the cafeteria example, the choice of the order inwhich to present fooditems does not force a particular diet on anyone.”
Here’s a passage from a book entitle Coercion, by Douglas Rushkoff “If we stop to think about this invisible hand working on our perceptions and behavior, we can easily become paranoid. Although we cannot always point to the evidence, when we become aware that our actions are being influenced by forces beyond our control-we shop in malls that have been designed by psychologists, and experience the effects of their architecture and color schemes on our purchasing behaviors-we can't help but feel a little edgy…”
… No matter how discreetly camouflaged the coercion, we sense that it's leading us to move and act ever so slightly against our wills. We may not want to admit consciously to ourselves that the floor plan of the shopping center has made us lose our bearings, but we are disoriented all the same. We don't know exactly how to get back to the car, and we will have to walk past twenty more stores before we find an exit.”
Positive and Negative Liberty Negative Liberty – Freedom From External Restraint Positive Freedom – Freedom To Be Who You Really Are
“If I were asked to name the deadliest subversive force within capitalism – the single greatest source of its waning morality – I should without hesitation name advertising. How else should one identify a force that debases language, drains thought, and undoes dignity? If the barrage of advertising, unchanged in its tone and texture, were devoted to some other purpose – say the exaltation of the public sector – it would be recognized in a moment for the corrosive element that it is. But as the voice of the private sector it escapes this startled notice.” – Richard Heilbroner
“Human beings like things. We buy things. We like to exchange things. We steal things. We donate things. We live through things. We call these things goods as in goods and services. We do not call them bads. This sounds simplistic, but it is crucial to understanding the power of Adcult. Still going strong, the industrial revolution produces more and more things not because production is what machines do, and not because nasty capitalists twist their handlebar mustaches and mutter, "more slop for the pigs," but because we are attracted to the world of things … Advertising supercharges some of this power.” – James Twitchell, Adcult
