Human behavior is economic behavior. Such a statement makes me a proponent of “imperialist” economics, whose greatest marshal is held to be Gary Becker himself. Yet the claim remains that human behavior is economic. A simple demonstration of the claim is that, supposing a person has a goal he seeks and actively tries to obtain, then he will do so in the manner least costly to him, thereby achieving maximum welfare given his circumstances. I make no claim as to what his goal or the means to achieve it are, nor how his welfare is measured. Nor do I normatively judge them.
In a pervious meeting of the Society, I made a revealed preference argument that tyrannies are ultimately legitimated by their subjects. This was met with derision from some quarters, but it follows immediately from revealed preference theory. Contrary to Admiral’s comment, I don’t think the Hungarians chose the Soviet tanks, but I think rather they chose the maintenance of their lives as a less costly alternative to defying those tanks. Tyranny is costly to for subjects to bear, but so is revolution (or even mere dissent). In many cases, the choice comes to suffer tyranny, or suffer death. In the course of human events, people and peoples have often elected death and seized their freedom instead, and many have suffered that burden and been memorialized – perhaps overzealously – or forgotten – perhaps unjustly.
It was this realization that has tempered my pity for the subjects of tyranny: an election was and remains theirs, even if it is neither pleasant nor directly one of who shall rule over them. Ultimately, there is liberty of sorts in this choice, and a legitimacy of sorts in acquiescence. This I feel lends weight to my position that the United States should be the friends of liberty everywhere; the guardians of only their own.
0 Responses to “Tyranny and Choice”