Noodge

I heard my old pal Cass Sunstein interviewed yesterday. He was discussing the new book he's written with economist Richard Thaler, Nudge. Their thesis is our lives are filled with many decisions, and they're rarely in neutral settings--without more information, we tend to let things stand, so the default position ends up winning.

This is where what they call "libertarian paternalism" comes in. That is, we should still have freedom of choice, but those in power should create settings that favor the better outcome. A classic example is an employer automatically signing up employees to the 401(k) program while allowing them to opt out, rather than the other way around.

There is merit in this concept. People don't have time to weigh every argument so it makes sense, after someone has done research into an issue, that those in power use the information to help put people on a useful path. But the potential problems are great.

First, let's assume government (and that's what we're really talking about--when we're nudged privately, we can at least walk across the street) knows what's best when it comes to things like finance or health. It'd still be hard to stop mission creep, as this gives government a new tool to make us do what they want us to, and to get into areas of morality where they otherwise might not tread.

A common example of a good nudge is an organ donation program we must opt out of. Even if you believe organ donation is a good thing, this is a pretty heavy-duty commitment these paternalists want us to make passively. We may be filled with both caution and inertia in general, not wanting to try certain things which are good for us--or society--but I still see a major difference between being nudged in one direction when actively choosing A or B, and being forced into a big commitment unless I take active measures to stop it.

And the more widespread the nudging is, the more morality is likely to play a role. (I realize almost every issue has at least some moral component to it, but I'm talking about issues where your position depends heavily on your sense of right and wrong.) Sunstein wants cafeterias to nudge us into eating more salads (which may or may not make our lives better), but would he want the government to try to nudge us into deciding whether or not to have an abortion? Or whether a library should carry a book? Or whether or not to own a gun? Just being scolds would be annoying enough, but it seems to me "nudging" could become a powerful political tool, allowing the government to get its foot in the door in all sorts of ways that we used to think wasn't really their business.