Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron, as private and public institutions can influence behavior while respecting freedom of choice. People often have ill-formed preferences, and their choices are influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. Libertarian paternalists aim to steer choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. Examples include automatic enrollment in retirement plans and novel savings options. Libertarian paternalism is a weak, nonintrusive form of paternalism that respects individual freedom to opt out. It is not coercive and is based on the idea that people should be free to choose, even if their choices are not fully informed. The authors argue that libertarian paternalism is a legitimate approach to improving welfare, as people often make suboptimal decisions due to bounded rationality and self-control. They emphasize that in many domains, people lack clear preferences, and that default rules, framing effects, and starting points significantly influence choices. The authors also discuss the inevitability of paternalism in certain contexts, such as legal and organizational rules, and suggest that libertarian paternalism can be applied to both private and public institutions. They argue that the anti-paternalist position is incoherent, as effects on behavior and choices are unavoidable. The authors conclude that libertarian paternalism is a valid approach to improving welfare while respecting freedom of choice.Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron, as private and public institutions can influence behavior while respecting freedom of choice. People often have ill-formed preferences, and their choices are influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. Libertarian paternalists aim to steer choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. Examples include automatic enrollment in retirement plans and novel savings options. Libertarian paternalism is a weak, nonintrusive form of paternalism that respects individual freedom to opt out. It is not coercive and is based on the idea that people should be free to choose, even if their choices are not fully informed. The authors argue that libertarian paternalism is a legitimate approach to improving welfare, as people often make suboptimal decisions due to bounded rationality and self-control. They emphasize that in many domains, people lack clear preferences, and that default rules, framing effects, and starting points significantly influence choices. The authors also discuss the inevitability of paternalism in certain contexts, such as legal and organizational rules, and suggest that libertarian paternalism can be applied to both private and public institutions. They argue that the anti-paternalist position is incoherent, as effects on behavior and choices are unavoidable. The authors conclude that libertarian paternalism is a valid approach to improving welfare while respecting freedom of choice.