Nudging, according to its inventors and defenders, is supposed to provide a non-coercive way of changing human behavior for the better—a freedom-respecting form of “libertarian paternalism.” Its original point was to complement coercive modes of influence without any need of justification in liberal frameworks. This article shows, using the example of food-product placement in grocery stores, how this image is deceptive. Although nudging practices may not restrict the freedom of consumers, nudging arrangements by public health authorities do restrict the freedom of shopkeepers in standard liberal senses. Libertarianism cannot justify this coercion, and the creed is best left out of the equation as the ideological ruse that it, in this discussion, is. Other liberal theories can justify the coercion, but on grounds that can also be applied to other methods of public health promotion by subsidies and regulation. This result reaffirms that nudging should be seen to complement, not to replace, those other methods.

根据其发明者和捍卫者的说法，助推应该提供一种非强制性的方式来改变人类的行为，使其变得更好——一种尊重自由的“自由主义家长式作风”。其初衷是补充强制影响模式，而无需在自由主义框架中进行任何辩护。本文以杂货店中的食品摆放为例，展示了这个图像是如何具有欺骗性的。尽管助推做法可能不会限制消费者的自由，但公共卫生当局的助推安排确实限制了标准自由主义意义上的店主的自由。自由主义不能证明这种强制是正当的，在本次讨论中，最好将这一信条排除在意识形态之外。其他自由主义理论可以证明强制措施的合理性，但其理由也可以应用于通过补贴和监管促进公共卫生的其他方法。这一结果再次证明，助推应该被视为对其他方法的补充，而不是取代。