Money and Markets: Essays in Honor of Leland B. Yeager

Leland Yeager’s utilitarianism as a guide to public policy 213In substance, contractarianism of James Buchanan’s type is similar to the utilitarianismexpounded in this book. ... Contractarianism emphasizes that it isindividuals who reap benefits and costs, satisfactions and frustrations, andhappiness or misery resulting from their interactions with one another. ... Contractarianshave no monopoly, however, in recognizing these facts. Here againutilitarianism and contractarianism intersect. ... Emphasis on social cooperationfurther dissolves tensions between the two doctrines.(2001: 209)But Yeager goes on to support the utilitarian approach to policy espousal, saying,Although both share individualistic values, one might conceivably try to makethis distinction: while utilitarianism derives individualism as a theorem, contractarianismsimply postulates it as an axiom. . . . [I]s consent (along with choice)really a first principle, an ultimate value? We value consent and choice becausewe care about outcomes and deplore the likely consequences of empoweringauthorities to override individual choice and govern people without theirconsent.(2001: 209–10)Yeager (2001) finds much more commonality between utilitarianism thanYeager (1985), but ultimately he argues that the commonality derives from theutilitarian underpinnings of the contractarian framework. Still, Yeager concludes,“The contractarian and utilitarian doctrines differ mostly in their rhetoric andconceivably also in their epistemology” (2001: 210).I am inclined to agree with Yeager part way on this, but to use his own argumentsto highlight an important difference. The hypothetical nature of the social contractand the Rawlsian veil of ignorance never bothered me much, because I felt like itwas saying, “Put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.” Decide what is good policy foreveryone, abstracting from your own interests. Here, the difference is, as Yeagersays, mostly rhetoric. But Yeager also points out that the contractarian frameworkdepicts government as the result of agreement, whereas in fact government implementsits agenda by coercion, and this seems to be a more important normativeissue. The contractarian framework suggests that, from a normative perspective,we should abide by government’s rules because they are something we have(conceptually) agreed to, but in what sense have we agreed to the coercive power ofgovernment? The contractarian framework accords government more legitimacythan it deserves.Natural rightsYeager sums up the rights approach well by saying,Rights theorists reject the approach that would take a stand on each specificpolicy issue, such as deregulation of a particular industry or imposition of wage