This is published under the terms of CC-BY.
I identify two problematic conclusions that remain somewhat implicit in Rizzo and Whitman’s book: the Panglossian conclusion that whatever the individual thinks or wants is best for her, and the Fatalistic conclusion that there are no justified paternalistic interventions. Against the first conclusion, I critically discuss the authors’ arguments against consistency-based rationality. Against the second, I show that there is a whole class of paternalistic interventions, Boosts, that do not require Rizzo and Whitman’s demanding epistemic preconditions in order to be successful.
Review of Behavioral Economics, Volume 8, Issue 3-4 Special Issue: Escaping Paternalism: Articles Overiew
See the other articles that are part of this special issue.