It is Never Okay for the State to Nudge

Cass Sunstein on the way that governments misuse the nudge principle. Personally, I’d have thought it entirely predictable. For the vile creatures that run the state machine, nudge (which is supposed to allow free will) and coercion are merely interchangeable synonyms.

The beauty of nudges is that when they are well chosen, they make people’s lives better while maintaining freedom of choice. 

I dispute this. It is no one’s business to nudge anyone. If I detect that it is being tried on, I’ll dig in my heels and resist. Even more so if it is the state doing it as it is no place of the state’s to influence the way I live my life. It is none of their business how I live, the food I eat, if I drink, smoke, gamble or ride a motorcycle. If the choices I make are detrimental to my health and longevity that’s my concern, not theirs.

Moreover, they usually don’t cost a lot, and they tend to have big effects. In an economically challenging time, it is no wonder that governments all over the world, including in the US and UK, have been showing a keen interest in nudging.

Well, yes, proffer a tool to manipulate people to a bunch of rabid control freaks and of course they will slaver at the thought. Did we expect anything else?

Inevitably, we have been seeing a backlash. 

Good. It’s nice when we finally see some backbone being exhibited.

Some people object that nudges are a form of unacceptable paternalism. 

That’s because it is. Sunstein may think that this “intuitive appeal” is flawed, but he is wrong – it is no place of theirs to nudge us anywhere. We are the arbiters of our lives, we decide for ourselves; those who would nudge can damned well nudge off. As I said, as soon as I detect it going on, I will resist. It is an appalling concept and Sunstein’s crocodile tears about how the concept has been hijacked have no effect on me. He and his co-conspirator unleashed this monster. If there is a backlash, that is a good thing, not a bad one.

5 Comments

  1. Under the right circumstances I think “nudging” could be a very useful tool. For example, I’d quite happily nudge the likes of Sunstein off a very high cliff.

    The idea that only people like himself and other right-thinking intellectuals know what’s best is a hideous one, and one that history’s refuted time and time again.

  2. I seem to remember that whoever wrote the book about nudging used the situation about asking people to donate their body parts. The idea was to add a paragraph, or some such, to, say, a driving licence application asking the person to tick a box it they agree. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that in itself. Where the idea goes off the rails is when the wording of the paragraph tries to induce a feeling of shame into the person if he does not tick the box.
    Of course, once Government gets its hands on the idea, nudging very quickly translates into coercion when the results are not considered good enough. At that point, enter the sock-puppet charities that demand ‘more must be done’.

    • The author of the book is also the author of the article.

      The trouble with looking at examples (such as organ donors) – and the reason the likes of Sunstein use them – is that it takes the focus off the principle and let’s them make emotional pleas. It’s the “won’t someone think of the children” argument.

      And in this case, the principle is that there’s such a thing as a model citizen and it’s ok for the state to mold everyone to fit it.

      This is all the more dangerous because of how Sunstein proposes to achieve this. Not through simply asking or even telling people what’s expected of them. But through far more insidious acts, so most people never even realise they’re being manipulated, being turned from an individual into just another name and number.

      To quote Alexis de Tocqueville:

      “Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild… The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

    • Actually, the organ donation question on the driving licence application is very much not okay,. You are applying for a driving licence and nothing else. The question of donation should never arise in that context. If you want to become an organ donor, that is an entirely different matter. As Andrew mentions the manipulation is sinister and very much immoral. I would not tick the box out of principle and would feel no shame or guilt in so doing.

Comments are closed.