Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 4, 2013, 9:30 a.m. EST by nomdeguerre
from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Wow, social engineering in the open. I, for one, feel "befuddled", "overwhelmed by choice." I'm deeply appreciative of the government "nudging" me towards a "framework of choices" to protect me from "errors in risk perception" that might "expose the whole of society" to the same errors.
"Sunstein, along with co-author Richard Thaler, defines libertarian paternalism as follows:
-- Libertarian paternalism is a weak, soft, and non-intrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened…Still the approach we recommend does count as paternalistic, because private and public choice architects are not merely trying to track or implement people’s choices. Rather, they are self-consciously attempting to move people in directions that will make their lives better. They nudge.
In other words, the government can present a "framework of choices" to correct "errors in risk perception." At the Nantucket Project, a festival of ideas held on Nantucket, Massachusetts, Sunstein delivered a spirited defense of this model for regulation. . . .
-- How can the government change the framework of choices that particular people are faced with so that their own small errors in risk perception don’t expose the whole of society?
These "errors in risk perception" are viewed as biases, which David Ropeik recently explained on Big Think:
-- Millions of people with such feelings want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to protect themselves from the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives.
In other words, if we approach this question from the standpoint of behavioral economics -- as Sunstein's push model does -- we must view the gun owner as not a rational actor but as a "befuddled character — bedeviled by impulses and sentiments, overwhelmed by choice." " http://bigthink.com/think-tank/safety-in-surveillance
We should all thank Cass for his honesty and openness. We know exactly who and what he is. He must be so arrogant that he's not even aware of it, probably just background reality to him.