<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Libertarian Paternalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/01/17/libertarian-paternalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/01/17/libertarian-paternalism/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:19:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Bryson</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/01/17/libertarian-paternalism/comment-page-1/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>William Bryson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/01/17/libertarian-paternalism/#comment-190</guid>
		<description>There is a fourth option that the example doesn&#039;t give and that is to make the arrangement such that it does not benefit the customer but rather drives the customer toward purchases that benefit the cafeteria, without necessarily being deleterious to the customer&#039;s health.  Grocery stores do it every day without consciously deciding to drive customers toward items which will make them &quot;as obese as possible.&quot;  So the broader point is, there is an option out there that is not &quot;paternalistic&quot; but also is not directly malicious (though it may have unintended negative effects).  That&#039;s a more insidious scenario as it undermines the authors&#039; point that people make choices that are not in their best interest: given the opportunity to make personal gains that do not have directly traceable negative impacts on others, people generally will make that choice and point out that others are free to not engage in whatever activity they are providing - at a profit - that is the root of the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a fourth option that the example doesn&#8217;t give and that is to make the arrangement such that it does not benefit the customer but rather drives the customer toward purchases that benefit the cafeteria, without necessarily being deleterious to the customer&#8217;s health.  Grocery stores do it every day without consciously deciding to drive customers toward items which will make them &#8220;as obese as possible.&#8221;  So the broader point is, there is an option out there that is not &#8220;paternalistic&#8221; but also is not directly malicious (though it may have unintended negative effects).  That&#8217;s a more insidious scenario as it undermines the authors&#8217; point that people make choices that are not in their best interest: given the opportunity to make personal gains that do not have directly traceable negative impacts on others, people generally will make that choice and point out that others are free to not engage in whatever activity they are providing &#8211; at a profit &#8211; that is the root of the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

