Libertarians are stupid, though.

Seriously.

They just don't understand that people in different situations respond to stimuli differently, and it is unreasonable to expect identical treatment to produce identical (or even remotely similar i.e., fair) results. Governments are good at spreading the cost of externalities and assigning them where they belong. The whole society benefits from fewer people contracting disease from unsanitary drinking water, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid or an @$$#0|3.

That's why in any country with decent infrastructure, the government chlorinates the tap water at the source. It's only in poor countries that people have to chlorinate their own water. But the question isn't about whether it's a good idea to prevent water-borne disease (of course it is). It's whether the government ought to use behavioural science to rescue people from their own unwise behaviour. Take Mike Bloomberg's large soda ban, in which restaurants can't serve sodas over 16 oz. There's nothing to stop anyone from buying two sodas if they really wanted that much soda, but the assumption must be that most people will just accept the smaller portion. Or take these experiments to see if kids can be induced to do better in school through financial incentives. Or take the research showing that you can massively boost enrolment rates in company pension schemes if you sign employees up by default and then allow them to opt out, instead of waiting for them to take the initiative to sign up.

Some people find this stuff creepy and manipulative. When is it OK to do things like this? It might be more excusable when the end goal is "making sure people don't die of cholera" rather than "helping people save money that they'd otherwise spend on X-boxes".

But we're darn snappy dressers! *polishes monocle*

If i understand it correctly, the argument of most libertarians why free market is good, boils down to: Market forces are better at manipulating people to behave in a way, that is good for the nation as a whole, then goverment programs.

So basically they advocate to do exactly that, using psychology to manipulate people.

Dogmatic livertarians have a problem, with basing policy on knowledge, that contradicts their dogmas. But thats a problem with dogmatism.

Admitting it is the first step, and your liver will thank you.

Speaking as a generally libertarian leaning individual, I don't know anyone up in arms about water chlorination (one friend with a fluoridation-conspiracy-fetish, but he's not libertarian, so whatev'). Libertarians I know are more likely to go all "nanny-state" over draconian enforcement of regulations with minimal actual benefit -- such as effectively banning children's books printed before 1985 or conducting SWAT-style raids on Amish farmers selling raw milk, all in the name of "public safety". Also, I've actually seen a lot of support in libertarian circles for using monetary incentives in education. But none of that is really on topic for this thread. Which, BTW, I'm finding really fascinating and educational, so let's not derail.

The podcast Smart Enough to Know Better in episode 32 interviews three prominent writers about topics closely related to this thread. I encourage you to check it out if you have time.

Alternatively you could check out the writers themselves:
Paul Guilding
Dr Stefan Hajkowicz
John de Graaf

Not surprised. Everyone I've ever known from my high school days until now who was making minimum wage either lived with their parents or had a bunch of roommates. This includes myself.