BURIDAN'S ASS, WRIT LARGE. That's the parable -- it makes a good economics question, actually -- about the donkey equidistant between two equally tasty bales of hay that starves to death because he can't make up his mind which bale to eat.

Russell at Cafe Hayek and Constrained Vision have both identified a Sebastian Mallaby column that -- stripped to its essentials -- suggests humans are two-legged versions of Buridan's ass, particularly if they are confronted with a choice of investment plans for their Social Security withholding.

The column fails, both in the small, and in the large.

Start small. Constrained Vision identifies a problem with Mr Mallaby's conclusion.

Mallaby may not want to have a choice in planning his retirement income, but many people do, including me. Why should we be denied that option? There may be legitimate economic concerns about privatization, but Mallaby's philosophical arguments are unconvincing.

Good libertarian answer, but let's get to the heart of the matter. The logical flaw arises much sooner. Mr Mallaby would not have written a very good answer to the economics question. Get this:

You see this truth in the behavior of the affluent, who actually pay to avoid choices. They hire home decorators so they don't have to stare glassily at 200 kinds of curtain rail. They hire marriage planners so they don't have to fret about cream napkins vs. white ones. There are said to be 10,000 wedding consultants practicing in the United States. If the rich are deliberately avoiding choice, why are we so sure that the majority want more of it?

Buzz. The rich are not avoiding choices. "Deliberate" IF AND ONLY IF "choice." They are choosing to delegate. We could take Mr Mallaby's argument seriously and ask, why are there any weddings for the society pages to cover? Cream or white is a relatively simple choice. Which of the 10,000 consultants are the best to hire? That might actually strengthen his argument against private accounts, in that stressed out ordinary Joes and Janes, critical faculties never sharpened by the government schools, never offered Financial Fitness for Life, would have to sort through mailbox-loads of proffers carefully crafted by the best publicists, with the most scrupulous attention paid by the best lawyers to the fine print that denieth what the big print promiseth.

The Cafe Hayek post proposes a different set of desirable consequences, also unanticipated by Mr Mallaby.

I think Mallaby's last sentence has it exactly backwards. The economic payoff from privatization will be small. The real payoff is moral—the opportunity to live as an adult, making choices and coping with the consequences, good and bad.

Ironically, what George Bush calls privatization will not be real privatization. What is called privatization is simply a mandatory government savings program where the vehicles for that saving will be highly limited to reduce that risk and stress that Mallaby and others are worried about.

Put another way, there will be a licensing bureau for financial plans and for planners. There is no wedding planners' cartel.

Powerline, also weighing in on the topic, get back to the heart of the matter.

The Social Security program is, in essence, a fraud which never could have been adopted but for the widespread belief that each person who contributes money into the system has an "account" with his money in it. It would be best if it were phased out of existence as quickly as possible. Given the political realities, anyone under the age of 50 should be agitating to bail out of the sinking ship and obtain the right to save money, rather than relying on the whims of the political process.

Precisely. And let's not hear any more talk about the supposed advantages of a defined-benefit pension plan. Yes, Social Security is a defined-benefit plan. Congress defines that benefit. Right now there are proposals to redefine the retirement age, eligibility for benefits, and how much payroll income shall be subject to tax.

The larger failing is in distracting readers with non-sequiturs about wedding planners while the existing policy is headed for a real crack-up.