Yes, private choice architects should have freedom of choice. Some, but not necessarily all, current paternalist measures should be rolled back; in particular the book explicitly supports school vouchers and freedom of contract to allow doctors and patients to contract around medical malpractice liability.

My conclusion is that although Cass is not currently a hard core libertarian, his position is libertarian in the weaker sense that adds up to 10-15% of the electorate–he wants less (but not necessarily zero) government compulsion in both economic and social matters than now exists.

However, there does exist the practical possibility of a self-interested government that would use nudges not for left/right political purposes but rather to enhance the civility or livability of society in a way that would be essentially unobjectionable. By this I mean that the nudged choices would serve every citizen’s interest as well as the government’s interest, in both the long term and short term, without harmful externalities, all while strengthening the constitution. An example might be a campaign of nudged choice toward personal responsibility.

In sum: I find it inadequate, and in fact counterproductive, to restrict to a left/right axis the discussion of the shortcomings of paternalistic libertarianism as a political tool. Improving society and livability are not essentially left/right propositions, they are shallow/deep propositions, and such are precisely the forte of choice architecture.

I’d like to be able to presume that a restaurant will be smoke-free, or at least have a smoke-free section, unless a sign outside clearly states “Smoking allowed here.” That is, I’d like smoke-free dining to be the default, but I also strenuously oppose laws preventing restaurants from allowing their patrons to smoke. What I mostly want is to know what to expect before I enter a smoke-filled room.

Similarly, there are plenty of people who have no financial acumen whatsoever. Coming up with some good savings plans and implementing them by default will save *everyone* a great deal of grief down the line – but allowing choices will allow this *with* financial acumen to manage their money for themselves.

There are many choices that we make every day, and frequently we are not well informed. I, for one, would like to know that the food I eat has passed muster as safe without having to examine the background of every item I eat – but I don’t want to prevent those who want it from drinking fresh, non-pasteurized milk, or eating rare meat, or the like. With a default system in place I could go to a restaurant and know that the food had passed quality control without having to specifically inquire, if the restaurant were required to inform patrons of any dishes that did not meet those standards. Those interested and knowledgeable could seek out other means of insuring that their food is safe, while ignorant folk like myself could just eat. Same way with prescription drugs. Surely that would be preferable to our current one-size-fits-all regulation.

Naturally we need to have discussions about what the defaults should be, and perhaps even a rule that if a plurality of the public makes a different choice, it should become the new default. Likewise we would have to guard against implicit bullying and the de facto denial of opting out (which I have seen in the military where it is theoretically possible but practically impossible to opt out of life insurance) – but even so, this could be a powerful tool in derailing calls for mandatory programs and requirements.

As others have said, if the authors would not support this system to replace much of what we already have, it is probably a ruse – but I think the idea itself is sound.