Why Paternalists Must Endorse Epistocracy

Recent findings from psychology and behavioral economics suggest that we are “predictably irrational” in the pursuit of our interests. Paternalists both social sciences philosophy use these to defend interfering with people's consumption choices for their own good. We should tax soda, ban cigarettes, mandate retirement savings make people healthier wealthier than they’d be on own. Our thesis is standard arguments offered support restricting people’s good also imply “epistocratic” restrictions voting Indeed, philosophical case paternalistic may stronger personal choices. So, paternalists face a dilemma: either endorse less interference or more