[blitz_skull]

I read this as “The government’s role is to nudge people into what the government determines is better than the people’s natural inclination.”

Did I understand that correctly? If I did, I don’t think anyone would disagree… in theory. The problem is there’s no standard way to measure and certainly no agreement on what that collective equilibrium should be.

Until we figure that out—no thanks. I’ll take my naturally not-as-optimized freedom without the government’s input.

[13415]

I've had similar criticisms to nudging, that it's basically just the same as advertising exploiting human biases, and that it's not really conducive to insight and a better political culture. It is kind of paternalistic. However, most real-world applications of nudging I've seen were uncontroversially beneficial. As a typical example, markings on roads can be spaced and designed in ways that make drivers slow down in danger zones, thereby reducing accidents. I've been to a number of talks about nudging over the years and know people working in that area, and have never seen an example where the term was used for "shaping public opinions", let alone shaping political opinions.

[pintxo]

Guess the problem is, there is a whole other group of parties how are manipulating us to act towards their interests. And I would say it’s clear that they are winning (see for example obesity, opioids).

So I don’t think we should handle this as a yes no question.

[ClumsyPilot]

Your point of view falls apart when crime enters the picture.

Criminal law is just another form of regulation. Somehow we decided that taking cocaine is a crime. And that pedophiles are criminals. And then government tries to ensure compliance with criminal law.

People generally agree that it is fit and proper for government to act, through education and other means, to ensure most people aren't criminals.

You might say: "well criminal law is different - but is it?

Someone spent 8 years in jail for sending lobster in an incorrect container. Not a live lobster, a dead one.

[AlecSchueler]

I think the difference is criminal law seeks compliance with the laws as they are, but this manufacturing of consent seeks compliance on bills when the elecorate may well note vote in their favour otherwise. Does that make sense? In one case they do what the public has told them and in the other they're telling the public what to do. As public servants the first should be acceptable but the latter now.

[majormajor]

Not everyone wants to follow criminal laws 100% of the time.

If someone wants to punch you in the face just how "optimized" do you want their freedom to do so, without legal consequences, be? Aka how many "nudges" should be in place to make that harder to get away with? If you don't want to get punched, you want people to think there'd be consequences, that bystanders would tell on them, etc. All those "nudges" need to be stronger than the "snitches get stitches" and similar nudges from the other side.

[ClumsyPilot]

I am not sure the difference is as real as it seems

No-one specifically voted for the patriot act, no one was elected on promices of passing it, yet it became law.

In Britain they are considering a law to ban drivers under 25 from carrying any children in the car. Noone has ever voted for this.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/company-car-tax-and-legisla...

[AlecSchueler]

Isn't that because we're manufacturing consent?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Someone spent 8 years in jail for sending lobster in an incorrect container. Not a live lobster, a dead one.

I feel this isn't a terrific example as it doesn't seem to be true.

"The notion the case was about packaging is incorrect,' [the prosecutor] said. 'Packaging was the means by which the crime was concealed. It was the mechanism to conceal the extent of overharvesting."

ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20210603000400/https://www.eenew...

US Gov's overzealous prosecution of Aaron Swartz on behalf of major publishers (and major donors) might work better. That involves creating law and the exercise of gov power, both of which were granted to the copyright interests behind influential lobbyists.

[blitz_skull]

Eh, not really. Criminal law is by-and-large generally consented upon.

A vast majority of the population agrees that sexually violating a child is morally reprehensible and fit for a wide range of punishments. And that’s been a social standard for most of the world, for a REALLY long time.

I’m not sure about the number of people who agree or disagree with cocaine being illegal. But everyone knows it’s self-destructive behavior that can easily boil into destructive behavior for others. Therefore, most people I know understand why it’s illegal and agree with it.

So my original point still stands. It’s largely not-optimized, and largely consented upon on the large points that matter concerning violence and preservation of life. That doesn’t make it without flaws which, by nature makes it unoptimized.