Positive freedom has it's drawbacks, but it's probably the best approach out there as far as maximizing utility goes. The most obvious alternative is to focus on negative freedoms, but then you end up with the Life Goals of Dead People as described by Ozy Brennan.
Alternatively, what it sounds like you are proposing is some sort of paternalistic trad position, deemphasizing freedom entirely. This feels like a radical overreaction to freedom not working perfectly in one single case, especially given there are methods like the 37% rule and upcoming technologies like AI matchmakers which could alleviate these problems.
In general, I'm pretty skeptical of propositions which say we need to start doing things from a "societal" or "policy" level, which is really a sort of planning model of culture, versus freedom models which are market driven. If your method is so good, you can just communicate it to individuals and they will use their freedoms to choose it themselves.
Nowhere in the post did I advocate for a "paternalistic trad position". What I was arguing against was the claim that positive freedom is ALWAYS good. Just because I am not an outright libertarian, does not mean I am a paternalist. This is a mischaracterization. But your other points are valid. Those methods you mention are exactly things that will help with Choice Paralysis, but they are doing it by, arguably, reducing the amount of choice the agent must process. Correct? The overall amount of options are the same, but the burden of making a decision is taken away from the agent. To you, doesn't that seem paternalistic?
Positive freedom has it's drawbacks, but it's probably the best approach out there as far as maximizing utility goes. The most obvious alternative is to focus on negative freedoms, but then you end up with the Life Goals of Dead People as described by Ozy Brennan.
Alternatively, what it sounds like you are proposing is some sort of paternalistic trad position, deemphasizing freedom entirely. This feels like a radical overreaction to freedom not working perfectly in one single case, especially given there are methods like the 37% rule and upcoming technologies like AI matchmakers which could alleviate these problems.
In general, I'm pretty skeptical of propositions which say we need to start doing things from a "societal" or "policy" level, which is really a sort of planning model of culture, versus freedom models which are market driven. If your method is so good, you can just communicate it to individuals and they will use their freedoms to choose it themselves.
Nowhere in the post did I advocate for a "paternalistic trad position". What I was arguing against was the claim that positive freedom is ALWAYS good. Just because I am not an outright libertarian, does not mean I am a paternalist. This is a mischaracterization. But your other points are valid. Those methods you mention are exactly things that will help with Choice Paralysis, but they are doing it by, arguably, reducing the amount of choice the agent must process. Correct? The overall amount of options are the same, but the burden of making a decision is taken away from the agent. To you, doesn't that seem paternalistic?