Of course, if private companies did things for the purpose of benefiting their employees, libertarians will point out how friendly and humane capitalism actually is.

Isn’t it also curious how this argument is never made with respect to advertising — i.e., private sector social engineering? Grocery stores are notorious about how they structure choices. Milk and beer in the back, so you have to traverse the store, and tabloids and candy in the front to prey on our base appetities. Worse, advertising is directed at growing humans in their formative years (i.e., children), inuring them to consumer values that will alter their decision-making landscape. Of course, following the super-market microcosm we see the sugary cereals are down below, aimed at children for nag purposes.

Your final criticism seems slightly incoherent. The government, on the one hand, will abuse this “powerful weapon”, yet it’s also unreasonable to expect the government to be “more efficient at using its information than individuals are.” What does that mean? Let’s suppose the second criticism does not apply, in which case libertarians will be scared that government can effectively structure other people’s choices to achieve certain desirable social ends. Let’s say the second criticism holds, which means the government will consciously structure people’s choices, but the outcomes will be bad or undesirable. Meaning what exactly? The government ushers people into 401K plans, but we find out this was a terrible idea? Fewer people gamble but this leads to some perverse social outcome? And who are the “rational, forward-looking decision makers?” We just leave options at their “natural” default and hope things turn out well in the end?

Under soft-paternalism people still have a choice. If the river-boat gambling example is truly a *fait accompli*, then I agree government may be overstepping its bounds. A basic tenet of liberalism is that choices should, if possible, be made reversible, giving people second chances. Birth control allowed people to have recreational sex. Conservatives say this (and abortion) allows people to avoid the “consequences of their actions,” reduces incentive to cultivate character, etc. Big deal. Probably the only reason that argument is made is because they think abortion is illegitimate. I suspect the same here; you’re opposed to government getting involved in this way not because it “infantilizes” people but because it’s not the domain of government.

Not to belabor the point, but yours is the type of argument made by Francis Fukuyama in _Our Posthuman Future_, where he cautions against character-sapping drugs like medication for shyness. My transhumanist libertarian friends do not think this is a problem.

Of course, if private companies did things for the purpose of benefiting their employees, libertarians will point out how friendly and humane capitalism actually is.

Isn’t it also curious how this argument is never made with respect to advertising — i.e., private sector social engineering? Grocery stores are notorious about how they structure choices. Milk and beer in the back, so you have to traverse the store, and tabloids and candy in the front to prey on our base appetities. Worse, advertising is directed at growing humans in their formative years (i.e., children), inuring them to consumer values that will alter their decision-making landscape. Of course, following the super-market microcosm we see the sugary cereals are down below, aimed at children for nag purposes.

Your final criticism seems slightly incoherent. The government, on the one hand, will abuse this “powerful weapon”, yet it’s also unreasonable to expect the government to be “more efficient at using its information than individuals are.” What does that mean? Let’s suppose the second criticism does not apply, in which case libertarians will be scared that government can effectively structure other people’s choices to achieve certain desirable social ends. Let’s say the second criticism holds, which means the government will consciously structure people’s choices, but the outcomes will be bad or undesirable. Meaning what exactly? The government ushers people into 401K plans, but we find out this was a terrible idea? Fewer people gamble but this leads to some perverse social outcome? And who are the “rational, forward-looking decision makers?” We just leave options at their “natural” default and hope things turn out well in the end?

Under soft-paternalism people still have a choice. If the river-boat gambling example is truly a *fait accompli*, then I agree government may be overstepping its bounds. A basic tenet of liberalism is that choices should, if possible, be made reversible, giving people second chances. Birth control allowed people to have recreational sex. Conservatives say this (and abortion) allows people to avoid the “consequences of their actions,” reduces incentive to cultivate character, etc. Big deal. Probably the only reason that argument is made is because they think abortion is illegitimate. I suspect the same here; you’re opposed to government getting involved in this way not because it “infantilizes” people but because it’s not the domain of government.

Not to belabor the point, but yours is the type of argument made by Francis Fukuyama in _Our Posthuman Future_, where he cautions against character-sapping drugs like medication for shyness. My transhumanist libertarian friends do not think this is a problem.