“I have already provided a short review on this book elsewhere, but my biggest issue was with the authors, both of whom know better, I assure you, who promote "libertarian paternalism" and defend the "paternalism" piece without any fair treatment of asymmetric information and moral hazard involved in such a position. The goal is to nudge a person toward the choice that would make him or her better off. Of course what "better off" is depends on the worldview of the Pater. Using abortions as an example—let's make it a single teenage mother—, a dogmatic Conservative would want to nudge the the pregnant mother toward carrying the fetus to term, whilst the Liberal might want to nudge toward an abortion. Neither of these choices is "right." The authors support offering both choices, but depending upon the structure of the information, one of the choices is going to influence the action taken more than the other; so dependent on who the Pater is, the so-called optimal choice will be different. Moreover, the authors have no problem realising that humans are fallible—and different to so-called econs, truly rational (if not fictional)—beings. Then they say that the paternalists in the power to sway choices are "experts" or have access to experts, but they aren't fallible...or biased...or self-interested... ”
