Could you ask your editors why this garbage -http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/ - is headlined on the front-page instead of this piece? Do your editors reject and denounce such substantive analysis which might yield actual insights into the candidates for the democratic party nomination for president?

This is really a fundamentally old (and traditionally conservative) approach--creating incentives rather than directly regulating. The only tangible benefits to this would be in the marketing benefits of drawing in more people to their philosophy.

I just really fail to see how this is new or groundbreaking in any way.

I've asked myself many times why I have enthusiasm for a major party candidate which I haven't had since....well, never. For a decade or more I've tried to describe my political leanings to friends as "libertarian-socialist" but would only get a puzzled look. "Is that liberal or conservative?" to which the answer is "Sort-of." There are things a government should provide its people and they should be ready to pay for (health care, security, infrastructure, meaningful trade agreements,etc.) There are things a government should not do to it's people (warrantless spying, fixed courts, turning over the economy to robber barons) Obviously a candidate can't use the "s-word" and not have heads explode so libertarian-paternalist it is!

There's an article about this on A2 of today's Washington Post as well.

...like we're not manipulated into specific choices or into selecting from a narrow range of choices 24/7. There must be a ton of studies showing that, of all the decisions impacting our lives, we make very few of them. Modern marketing and political strategy seem to be based entirely on manipulation.

The question isn't whether we'll be manipulated but how we will be manipulated. Do I object to being manipulated into saving for retirement, eating my veggies, using less energy, and contributing more to my community? No. Particularly if I still maintain the option *not to do these things, all of which are generally agreed to be good choices by people across the political spectrum.

I know I don't always have enough willpower to make good "long-term" choices. Help is appreciated.

Is approximately what we used to call Mussolini's corporatism. FYI

This terminology really bothers me. I've met some really extreme libertarians who have colored my opinion of it as the worst of the "As long as I'm ok everyone else can go to hell" and "She wouldn't be raped if she wasn't so stupid" or "racism and hate crimes only exist because liberals think they do ". Even so I don't like this libertarian paternalist idea as it sounds... sleazy. It has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with paternalism. Opposites which like oil and water don't mix. And they frame choice in such a way it makes it sound like you actually don't have a choice. I'd rather they say "yes, we'd like you to pay for education and healthcare" than have something along the lines of "You can spend your money however you want, as long as it is for education or healthcare".This sales pitch is a botch.

Also it is true about the status quo, most of the time whatever you set as the base state will prevail as more common even if it is effortless to opt out.

Is no libertarian of any sort whatsoever..

He is in favor of giving people criminal records for doing exactly what he did in the past.. Criminal records that will keep them from running for president.

Libertarian? Absolutely not.

Hypocrite? Absolutely.

If incentives are implemented openly and accountably, that is, people are fully aware that they exist and what they are intended to do, it seems like a useful strategy. I think people feel uncomfortable with "choice architecture" if there is a connotation of subterfuge or manipulation. Incentive policies should be open to rational debate by all, as part of a healthy representative government, such as ours is supposed to be.

... or any of the other social engineering programs represented by the indirect subsidy of a tax break, then you've already answered yes to the question of whether or not you're up for libertarian paternalism. Whether or not you thought of it that way is a separate issue.

There really shouldn't be a conflict between left and libertarian - I'm willing to accept that there are people who are conservative who are mistrustful of government economic directives in the way that I am mistrustful of government social directives over what I should believe.

Plus, this is America. I don't know why people don't want to wear helmets on their motorcycles or forego a national health plan, but designing social policies that account for people's ability to opt out seems to me to be a change worth pursuing... because the current lack of progress isn't really getting us anywhere, and perhaps, just perhaps, the people who want to opt out won't burn their energy screwing the rest of us to get what they want.

A bit naive, I know.

You plainly don't know what corporatism is, in terms of the state co-opting social organizations in order to consolidate social control of private sphere activities.

If you're going to work in some agitprop, may I suggest the example of the person who accuses Senator Obama of being a hypocrite about drug laws? At least that has some basis in reality.

ARRRRGH! What's in YOUR wallet?

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, we will finish your treasury you sodden old bum!

While I can’t say that I’m a fan of the name “libertarian paternalism” for this movement, they are definitely on to something that is sorely needed today in our shallow political landscape.

The traditional labels of “conservative” and “liberal” are tired, out of date, and frankly stupid – these are labels hurled back and forth by political gasbags to conveniently label viewpoints. We can now see more clearly than ever what a total crock so-called conservatism has become, with multi-millionaires and large corporations coming hat-in-hand to the government for bailouts because they are “too big to fail.”

Likewise, many people on the far left are rather uninformed about the unintended economic consequences of too much regulation and high taxes – which can sometimes make the problems worse that they are trying to solve, though at least they tend to be less disingenuous than the hypocrites of the Right.

Economists are human too, and the “Dismal Science” is notoriously faddish when it comes to embracing trends. The Keynesian revolution of the 1930s was replaced by the supply-side model of the Chicago school in the 1970s and 1980s, which is looking more and more hollow by the year. The emperor wears no clothes!

I would be interested in knowing what the authors’ views would be about the tax code. Everyone knows that the American tax system is ungainly, wasteful, corrupt and just too complex. To me it seems that “libertarian paternalism” could easily be abused by special interest, indeed it already is via tax breaks, credits etc. for this moneyed interest or that. What fixes would the authors recommend in applying their ideas to the tax code, and how would they prevent this sort of abuse? I would be greatly interested in knowing more.

While I have a hard time agreeing with a couple of the specifics in the editorial, the power of its philosophical appeal cannot be denied. It seems to offer a way out of the tired Reaganite dichotomy of conservative/liberal and is another reason why I’m for Obama even though I don’t agree with all his positions. We need a different direction in the discussion. I can't think of a more important subject that affects us all today.