So I came across this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism and I think it violates basic principles or ideas of libertarianism. For example the non agression principle. The moment you "try to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves", you are violating their personal autonomy. By consciously influencing/manipulating another persons (or group) behavior, without previously explicitly asking for consent, you are implicitly taking away from them the choice to not act on your influence/manipulation. Stated differently: by making the choice to influence another person or group, you are taking away this choice, to not be influenced by you, from them.
Another thing you are you taking away from a subordinate person is a chance to learn and make important experiences for themselves. There is likely an insight, which is the basis for acting on behalf of another person (or group), and it is something you derived from an experience, maybe a painful one. By influencing someone else in the light to not make this (painful) experience, you are taking away from them the opportunity to come to this insight on their own. Distance is more valuable than interfering in this respect. (Chronic) Interference leads to dependency. Paternalism in general leads to dependency and that this is the opposite goal of libertarianism. Most states of western industrial nations are very paternalistic. It makes sense to me, this mechanism of paternalism is how national states accumulate power over time and make their citizens dependent upon them. As such I believe that the excessive paternalism in western industrialized nations is the basis for many of today's problems. It's like a growing snowball. It's a social imbalance and libertarianism should be a response to this and not make the situation worse.
To be exact and clear: there are situations where paternalistic behaviors are necessary. But then the situation itself, and not your (or someones) reasoning about it, is the cause of action. The situation demands it. My point is: if you have to think or argue about whether to act in a paternalistic fashion, you shouldn't do it.
This might be a good read about it, from a psychologist point of view.
Posted by fonzane