Is Everybody Happy?

How the dismal science applies to your life.
Nov. 9 1999 3:30 AM

Is Everybody Happy?

The cost-benefit analysis of making folks smile.


Here's the least controversial principle in all statecraft: Never pass up an opportunity to make everyone happier at the same time. Admittedly, opportunities like that are vanishingly rare--almost anything you propose is likely to make someone unhappy--so the principle is as useless in practice as it is compelling in theory. But if you want to talk about the difference between good and bad policy, it helps to have an uncontroversial starting point.


This particular starting point has proved useful enough to earn a proper name. Economists call it the Pareto Principle, in honor of the 19th-century economist Vilfredo Pareto. The party line among economists is that although we disagree about a myriad of issues, at least we’re all good Paretians: If you can think of a way to make everyone happier, we’re behind you all the way.

How disturbing, then, to realize that the Pareto Principle conflicts with another value that some of us hold at least equally dear--the right of individuals to make free choices. Here's a stylized example: Suppose some people (call them the "prudes") cherish their freedom of religion, but not half so much as they would cherish a general ban on pornography. Others (call them the "lewds") cherish their right to read Lady Chatterley's Lover but not half so much as they would cherish a general ban on religion. Then if you outlawed both pornography and religion, you'd make everyone happier, while simultaneously making everyone less free.

The Pareto Principle demands that we embrace such a law while the fundamental precepts of liberalism demand that we recoil from it. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen pointed out 30 years ago, there's no such thing as a Paretian liberal. When some people get pleasure from controlling other people, the Paretians and the liberals must part ways.

That's no problem in practice, because in practice there will always be liberals who are offended by book-banning--and the very existence of those liberals leads the Paretian to withdraw his endorsement of the ban. (Remember, the Pareto Principle endorses only changes that make everyone happier, including the liberals.) But in practice, nobody is guided solely by the Pareto Principle anyway. Instead, we're guided by more flexible criteria such as the cost-benefit principle: A policy is good when its benefits exceed its costs, with benefits (or costs) measured by what the proponents (or opponents) would be willing to pay to see the policy enacted (or defeated).

Under quite general circumstances, it can be proved (though not in the space of a single magazine column) that free markets yield exactly those outcomes the cost-benefit principle recommends. That makes it easy to reconcile a taste for economic welfare with a taste for individual liberty: Usually, markets deliver both at once.

Usually, but not always. With just a slight modification, the paradox of the Paretian liberal reasserts itself in the cost-benefit context. Suppose I'm willing to pay $20 to read the subversive works of Paul Krugman and you're willing to pay $40 to stop me. A strict cost-benefit analysis suggests that Krugman's writing should be banned.

(There's no need for a ban if you can locate me and offer me, say, $30 to change my reading habits--and if you can be assured that I won't just take the money and run. But let's suppose the impracticality of such arrangements leaves book-banning as the only realistic alternative.)

That's a conclusion we liberals find repugnant, and it would be nice to avoid it. One way out is simply to declare that "psychic costs don't count." If you don't like getting your nose punched, your aversion goes into the cost-benefit calculus and inspires us to write laws that discourage nose-punching. But if you don't like knowing I read Krugman, that's your own problem.

Appealing as that position might sound, it's also suspiciously incoherent. If my habit of reading Krugman and my habit of punching your nose are equally painful to you, why should public policy discourage one and not the other?


Sports Nut

Grandmaster Clash

One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.

The Extraordinary Amicus Brief That Attempts to Explain the Wu-Tang Clan to the Supreme Court Justices

Amazon Is Officially a Gadget Company. Here Are Its Six New Devices.

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.

How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Here are the facts.


How to Order Chinese Food

First, stop thinking of it as “Chinese food.”

Scotland Is Inspiring Secessionists Across America

You Shouldn’t Spank Anyone but Your Consensual Sex Partner

Sept. 17 2014 5:10 PM The Most Awkward Scenario in Which a Man Can Hold a Door for a Woman
  News & Politics
Sept. 18 2014 10:42 AM Scalia’s Liberal Streak The conservative justice’s most brilliant—and surprisingly progressive—moments on the bench.
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
Sept. 18 2014 11:25 AM Gays on TV: From National Freakout to Modern Family Fun
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 18 2014 11:40 AM Where Pregnant Women Aren't Allowed to Work After 36 Weeks  
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
Sept. 18 2014 11:40 AM Where the Girls At? Jhené Aiko, Marsha Ambrosius, Ledisi, and the other brilliant women of R&B who aren’t getting their due in 2014.
Future Tense
Sept. 18 2014 10:07 AM “The Day It All Ended” A short story from Hieroglyph, a new science fiction anthology.
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 18 2014 7:30 AM Red and Green Ghosts Haunt the Stormy Night
Sports Nut
Sept. 17 2014 3:51 PM NFL Jerk Watch: Roger Goodell How much should you loathe the pro football commissioner?