Then there are those whom Sunstein refers to as “we.” We know this, we know that, and we know better about the way ordinary people make their choices. We are the law professors and the behavioral economists who (a) understand human choosing and its foibles much better than members of the first group and (b) are in a position to design and manipulate the architecture of the choices that face ordinary folk. In other words, the members of this second group are endowed with a happy combination of power and expertise.
That is Jeremy Waldron, and I recommend the entire essay.
The article is a nice exposition, but I feel like it sets up tension in the reader’s mind unnecessarily where it dismisses “nanny state” and “paternalism” in the beginning. Parts of section 3 and nearly all of section 4 are, in my mind, the exact objections libertarians have to paternalism and nanny states. To say that nudging is not inherently paternalistic because it can be used by those with no paternalistic power over us (private sector marketers) is not to say much at all.
Nearly every human experiences literal paternalism, where Father Knows Best and takes responsibility for upbringing and well-being of his children (even where “father” is female or not genetically related to child or the house is an institution). This is a natural and naturally temporary state of affairs. Most children upon reaching adulthood begin to resent and distance themselves from paternalism. At some point, father’s interest in controlling his children’s lives becomes suspect — it is no longer biologically or developmentally necessary, so in whose benefit is he acting?
“Nanny state” is very similar to paternalism though even more regressive / infantilizing. There is an aspect of helplessness and even humiliation when the nanny may shush an insolent child with warm teatmilk or publicly chide him for deeply private, victimless failures, proceeding to change that dirty diaper right there on the sidewalk while complaining of the need to so. To subject oneself to such loss of dignity is acceptable. To force it upon adults is unconscionable.
I would boil down the (very nice) exposition into a few aspects:
1. Nudging, paternalism, etc. — these are all within the context of an entity that controls another (contra the marketing nudge example)
2. Paternalism is natural and intuitive to every human, though recognizing its natural end and inapplicability is (apparently) not obvious.
3. Paternalism is necessary and clearly passes the cost / benefit test only when the child is not independently viable or has not reached a minimum threshold of development.
4. Where the child has achieved independent viability and requisite development, paternalism has simulataneously lost its benefit and increased its cost.
5. Costs include: infantilization and loss of dignity, the risk of being forced or manipulated against one’s interest, the risk of being conscripted to serve the paternal’s interest, the risk of regression to helplessness for the individual, etc.
None of the above assumes we can’t trust the paternal figure. But the mere fact of the paternal figure imposing paternalism unnecessarily creates distrust, amplifying concern that the imposition is for the paternal figure’s sake. When there are countless reasons to distrust the paternal figure outside of the paternal imposition, it should no longer be unclear why such imposition produces such resentment.