Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Mulford Sibley pungently notes, this can be justified
on moral or natural rights, but certainly not on utilitar
ian, grounds. (37) One may speak in hypothetical
t e r ms, a sec 0 nom i s t sseem so f 0 nd 0 f do i ng, 0 fin d i v i ­
dual "utiles," but, even granting the very dubious proposit
ion that one may "quantify" onels "utility scale,"
we sti 11 have no warrant for supposing that one individ
uaI' ssen sat ion s 0 f pIe a sur e and. pa i n,. and t h us his
"ut iIi ty scale," is the same as another's. "We do not
need to ·be slavish behaviorists," Professor Lionel
RObbins comments,
to realize that here is not scientific eviden
c e • Therei s nomeans 0 f t est i n g the rna gnit
ude of At s sa t i sfact ion as compared wi th
B' s. I f we tested the state of their bloodstreams,
that would be a test of blood, not
satisfaction. Introspection does not enable
A to measure what is going on in B's mind.
There is no way of comparing the satisfaction
of different people.(38)
How, for example, can we really know whether the
amount of pleasure Jones receives from being exposed to
the aroma of P-U Pipe Tobacco is greater or less than
the pain or discomfort Smith undergoes by the same exposure?
Thus, the "greatest happiness" formula, upon
which the entire Benthamite-utilitarian ediface is
bu i It, is i tsel f based upon an unproven, unprovable and
clearly arbitrary assumption.(39) In short, despite
its seeming simplicity and plausibility, Bentham's uti­
I i tar ian i sm affords no test whatsoever as to whether
government action is justified in any particular case.
A mu c h mo res0 phi s ticated ver s ion 0 f the c I ass i ca I
ut iIi tar ian doctrine is found in the "collective goods"
and "externalities" or "neighborhood effects" arguments
of many contemporary economists and social scientists.
The government, it is argued, is necessary to supply
certain goods and services that are generally considered
to be (a) essential, or at least highly desirable,
and (b) incapable, or impracticable, of being
supplied on the market. This incapacity derives from
the bel ief that particular goods and services cannot,
by the i rna t u res, bed i v idedin t 0 rna r gina I un its and
sol d t 0 i n d i v i d ua I buyer s . Co nseq ue n t I y, inor de r for
such a good to be supplied to anyone, it must be suppI
ied to everyone, i.e., it is a collective good. The
reasoning behind the collective goods justification for
162