Groan writers, statist and authoritarian to the core do not see the problem with Michael Bloomberg’s use of the nudge to persuade New Yorkers to drink smaller fizzy drinks.
“If you want to kill yourself, I guess you have a right to do it,” Bloomberg observed laconically to reporters, reconfirming his place as America’s most weirdly likeable obnoxious politician. “We’re trying to do something about that … in New York City alone, we’re going to spend $4bn of your money to treat obesity-related diseases. If somebody wants to have a march, I suppose it’s funny, but it’s so tragic that the humour escapes me.”
There’s nothing remotely funny about it. What Bloomberg and the author of the Guardian piece, Oliver Burkman miss, is that everything that is utterly, utterly wrong with the policy is right there in that quote: “we are spending your money…” $4 fucking billion of it! They have no damned right to be spending other peoples money doing this or any other attempt to manipulate peoples choices. It isn’t their money and peoples choices are none of their damned business.
Ridiculous as all this is, it’s worth briefly recapping why it makes no sense to see Bloomberg’s policy as an incursion on anyone’s liberty.
That is precisely what it is; an attempt by politicians who think that they know better (they don’t) to manipulate people by spending their money nudging them into the preferred direction. Damned right it is an invasion of liberty. Politicians should leave well alone. If people drink themselves into an early, fizzy grave, it is their choice. Leave them alone.
The proposal is a classic example of a “nudge”, as defined by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in their famous book of that name. It doesn’t stop you guzzling as much Coke as you like, but it modifies your “choice architecture” – the context in which you decide how much Coke to guzzle – so as to guide you towards the healthier option. Likewise, as Sunstein and Thaler explain, you can transform the dietary choices of school pupils by making salads slightly easier to reach for than fries; nobody’s deprived of their right to fries. You can transform savings habits with bank accounts that move a portion of wages into a separate account unless the user opts out.
It is, of course, the statist’s corruption of the principle. They have taken an idea that in principle is benign and used it to nanny us. I have made a decision, using my own choice architecture. If the politicians want me to do something, I’ll do the opposite. They can take their “choice architecture” and stick it into a choice orifice. It is not their place to make decisions on our behalf and then manipulate us, wasting huge sums of our money in the process. Our lives and how we live them, for good or bad is none of their bloody business.
I think the $4 billion refers to the supposed health costs of treating supposedly obesity related diseases (highly debatable in itself) not of implementing the policy.
In the U.S it costs NOTHING. Every one has, or does not have, in which case they are stuffed any way, PRIVATE health insurance. Where does the “Government” come into that equation?
Schemes such as Medicare and Medicaid are taxpayer funded, for example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidwhelan/2010/09/20/new-york-lt-gov-says-medicaid-costs-are-pushing-state-off-a-fiscal-cliff/
Yes, of course, that makes sense. There was me thinking that he was being remarkably candid – not least given the eye-watering figures involved.
Despite that particular point being holed below the waterline, the basic premiss stands – it is none of his business what size portions private enterprises offer to their clients.
The thing is, the authors of Nudge have consistently denounced nanny state actions like this. eg. https://twitter.com/R_Thaler/status/208273339507150849
Indeed, but they should have seen it coming…
Hmm. Lmp post, rope, politician…. WHAT choice do I have?
Must ask an architecht.
This is the fundamental principle they don’t get. It is not their money to spend on their whim but ours to spend on what we approve. There must be mechanisms whereby we can express that wish, should we wish.
XX There must be mechanisms whereby we can express that wish, should we wish. XX
It is generaly called “voting”, but as they use our money to fix that their way as well. then….
There is a wondeful saying in German; “Gegen Demokraten, helfen nur Soldaten.”
Against democrats, troops are the only help.