Silvio and Sigivald have already made plain the main fallacies and inaccuracies in Roger’s “argument.” But since Roger appears not to have read even the first chapter of Thaler and Sunstein’s book, please allow me to knock out the third and final leg from Roger’s argument.
Thaler and Sunstein’s take on paternalism is to nudge individuals in their own best interest _as_those_individuals_perceive_it_, not as some central planners perceive it, nor as Thaler and Sunstein perceive it. So Alisa’s notion that the choice architects can damage the system is essentially moot, as long as we take Thaler and Sunstein’s concept at face value. Again, all the choice architects can do is ask the questions differently.