The citizen choice architect in an ultra-processed world

Two concepts shaped and continue to shape the discussion on the limits of a liberal and democratic state. First, Mill's harm principle, according to which the fundamental justification for a state exercising power over individuals is to prevent harm being done to others. Second, the distinction between the public sphere, where liberal democracies can intervene, and the private sphere, where individuals are, in principle, free to do as they like. I argue that both concepts have to be revisited in the context of today's 'ultra-processed' world, in which sophisticated technologies and highly engineered products reach deep into the private sphere, exploiting human psychology and jeopardizing citizens' health and welfare in the interest of maximizing profit. In this ultra-processed world, where the distinction between the public and the private spheres is blurred, systemic interventions such as regulation and taxation, often criticized as paternalistic, are necessary to minimize harm. However, they must be complemented by interventions informed by behavioural science that modify and guide individual behaviours. Beyond the soft paternalism of nudging, people can be empowered to self-nudge - a non-paternalistic approach that enables them to design and structure their own decision environments and choice architectures as they see fit.

Automated summary

Two concepts of Mill's harm principle and the distinction between public and private spheres should be revisited in today's 'ultra-processed' world, where advanced technologies exploit human psychology and jeopardize citizens' well-being. Systemic interventions like regulation and taxation are necessary to minimize harm, which should be supplemented with interventions informed by behavioral science that guide individual behaviors. Empowering individuals to self-nudge, rather than paternalistic nudging, allows them to design their own decision environments and choice architectures.