Two essays on the econlib web site.
1. Pierre Lemieux re-examines James Buchanan’s The Limits of Liberty.
“My approach,” he writes at the beginning of the book, “is profoundly individualistic, in an ontological-methodological sense” (emphasis in original); “[e]ach man counts for one, and that is that.” It follows that individual liberty is a value and that the social system should be based on unanimous consent. Any limit to liberty must thus be consented to by each and every individual.
2. I review Robert Sugden’s The Community of Advantage.
Sugden proposes what he calls contractarianism, which he credits to James M. Buchanan. Instead of thinking in terms of social decisions made by benevolent autocrats, Sugden’s contractarian treats decisions as made by individuals acting voluntarily and in concert. The job of the welfare economist is to act as a mediator, making individuals aware of opportunities for mutually agreeable bargains as suggested by the economist’s research.
“The job of the welfare economist is to act as a mediator, making individuals aware of opportunities for mutually agreeable bargains…”
That’s a job for a market.
…it is possible for economists to convey their insights to individuals while still leaving them to make their own choices and bargains. In theory, if the outcomes suggested by behavioral economics and welfare economics are truly desirable, then people can arrive at those outcomes without being commanded, or even nudged, by a benevolent autocrat.
Shout it from the rooftops.
A republican system of government requires that the voter gift his “consent” to a third party representative. Is that fundamentally in conflict with contractural libertarianism?
the economist plays the game that Kenneth Minogue called “fantasy despot.”
Isn’t this game the reason most economists who are happy as economists are happy about their work? Helping to make the philosopher-king more “benign”.
Crucially in practice, as noted, it is:
much simpler to implement public policy by fiat
On the issue of “true” or “rational” choice of the individual is embedded:
The intervention is justified on the basis that a rational individual would prefer the outcome that is influenced by the “nudge” to the outcome that would result otherwise from the individual’s choice.
But I understood the advantage was that society was better off, and the individual was action-indifferent. Society is better off with less obesity, and those eating don’t “really” want the desert more than the salad enough to actually choose no on the early salad but yes on the late desert, altho some do so choose and the choice is there. Or (not mentioned) they accept the default opt-in for organ donation and don’t actively choose to opt-out; or they accept the default company retirement arrangements as part of their employment contract without explicitly choosing some other option.
Very important is that there IS some order in line, either salad first or desert first; either organs are available for others or not with no further action; the company does make some retirement arrangement, possibly including nothing other than minimum Social Security. Why not explicitly choose what is socially optimal while allowing individuals to opt-out (or choose otherwise) for a better universal agreed to contract?
SJDs:
Despot is also a good word, but too little known: Social Justice Despots is what I’d like conservatives to call the nPC indoctrinated screamers. (non-Player Characters from gamers).