[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]


..."Suppose Alice and Bob have to decide whether to go to the cinema to see a chick flick, and that each has the liberty to decide whether to go themselves. If the personal preferences are based on Alice first wanting to be with Bob, then thinking it is a good film, and on Bob first wanting Alice to see it but then not wanting to go himself, then the personal preference orders might be:

* Alice wants: both to go > neither to go > Alice to go > Bob to go
* Bob wants: Alice to go > both to go > neither to go > Bob to go

There are two Pareto efficient solutions: either Alice goes alone or they both go. Clearly Bob will not go on his own: he would not set off alone, but if he did then Alice would follow, and Alice's personal liberty means the joint preference must have both to go > Bob to go. However, since Alice also has personal liberty if Bob does not go, the joint preference must have neither to go > Alice to go. But Bob has personal liberty too, so the joint preference must have Alice to go > both to go and neither to go > Bob to go. Combining these gives

* Joint preference: neither to go > Alice to go > both to go > Bob to go

and in particular neither to go > both to go. So the result of these individual preferences and personal liberty is that neither go to see the film.

But this is Pareto inefficient given that Alice and Bob each think both to go > neither to go....The point is, if libertarianism can't provide for the most efficient solution (and a restriction of freedom can), then from a consequentalist point of view intervention in the marketplace is justified. Of course that's completely eschewing morality, but the majority of society only cares about the results of policies rather than the means used to achieve them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is worse than "Who's On First", and probably has about as much point.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, if libertarianism can't provide for the most efficient solution (and a restriction of freedom can), then from a consequentalist point of view intervention in the marketplace is justified. Of course that's completely eschewing morality, but the majority of society only cares about the results of policies rather than the means used to achieve them.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Efficient" or "inefficient" aren't adjectives that would spring to my mind regarding the above scenarios.

If I might offer a mild suggestion, you would likely do well by refraining from attempting to draw sound conclusions from conjectured nonsense.