The Utilitarianism Paradox
A free society doesn't aim at the maximization of happiness, yet only in a free society is the maximization of happiness possible...
Most libertarians reject Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy[1] because it appears to grant people the right to initiate force upon one another (via the state) so long as the cause is thought to promote happiness. The paradox is, that while a free society does not aim at the maximization of happiness, only in a free society is the maximization of happiness possible.
Some consumer choices are obviously detrimental to overall happiness. For example, If people in a free society choose to smoke, it should be obvious that this is less utilitarian than to feed the world's poor with the cost of the carton of cigarettes. Particularly if the smoker has got to the point (which many do) where they no longer even enjoy smoking, but just do it out of habit because they are addicted to it. If people pursue diets that lead to chronic illness, in a free society all we can say is: “I would choose differently.”
In an attempted “utilitarian” society, it is likely that whatever one might choose to do to regulate and stop these behaviors would result in more misery, long term. Take for example the prohibition of alcohol (1920-1933) which brought the mafia to America, or The War on Drugs which, in addition to being waged at incredible expense, has separated fathers from children and left people to rot for the crime of smoking a plant and brought cartels of gangsters to South America. Regulating non-utilitarian behaviors always bears a high price tag to the taxpayer which would no doubt create more happiness if it was allocated by the consumer to buying those things, they at least believe will maximize their own utility.
In addition, when it comes to freeing the world’s poor of poverty, the massive economic growth created by the conditions of freedom would far outpace any money thought to be “wasted,” by truly consistent utilitarians, on the caprices of the consumer. It may seem, on the face of it, “un-utilitarian” to “allow” billionaires heat their outdoor swimming pools while the world’s most poor live on less than $1.90 a day while, but those who actually take the time to understand how the market functions, and how poverty has actually been eliminated in those nations where it has, can look to the horizon and understand that it is in fact the assets of the wealthy which are destroying poverty and maximizing utility. All those billions are invested in the factories, machines and technological research which has pulled the people of the west out of poverty already and is helping those nations which have moved from command economies to market economies out of poverty as we speak. Redistribute the money to the poor and they’ll soon spend it and be poor again, and this will come at the expense of tremendous investment in wealth-creating industries and technology. Allow the market to allocate resources to their most profitable ends (according to supply and demand) and companies will rush to world’s poorest nations to take advantage of cheap labor and develop sustainable infrastructure which will bring them out of poverty for good. In Bangladesh, the number of extremely poor fell from 44 to 26 million, and poverty in Cambodia has been cut in half. We see this trend all across the world. To the extent developing countries free their markets poverty falls - while those countries that hold onto autocratic control of the economy remain impoverished.
The paradox of libertarian opposition to utilitarianism is that when we resist the temptation to regulate people into pursuing happiness for a quick fix, over the long term, the market maximizes utility.
I would like to write hundreds more interesting and insightful articles like this one. If you would like to read them please consider contributing with cashapp (£Antonysammeroff), paypal (frequency528@hotmail.co.uk), or bitcoin ~~~ if I’m writing I’m not “working” but I would like to “work” on writing because I have some unique things to share!
Recommended for Further Reading:
George Reisman, Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the "Rich": https://mises.org/library/anti-obamanomics-why-everyone-should-be-favor-reducing-taxes-rich
Yours truly, How Capitalists Serve Public Interest: https://mises.org/wire/how-capitalists-serve-public-interest
[1] Most notable exceptions being David Friedman, and then Mises, Hazlitt and Hume who were “rule” utilitarians, which is slightly different.