By Anthony de Jasay
At one time or another, most of you have seen in the street the warning
sign "Danger: Men at Work." None of you have seen a danger sign
warning "Danger: Collective Choice at Work." This is probably a great
mistake, for collective choice has an immense destructive potential, ranging
from corrosion to explosion, and the fiction that the social contract makes it
all right and all benign is at best a half truth and at least a half lie. The
present article looks at what tends to happen when collective choice is at work
where men are at work and are paid wages for it.
The knee jerk understanding of collective choice is "democracy,"
where its rough-and-ready meaning is one-man, one-vote majority rule
circumscribed by constitutional limits on what the majority may and may not do,
with these limits being fixed by the majority itself in some higher,
constitutional incarnation. The gaps between this ideal and the ways it works
out in practice are well known.1 In any case, the democratic ideal is only a very special case of the
form collective choice may take. In its general form, it is the solution of a
"game" by which the decisions of some members of society are accepted
by most or all as binding. The former rule and gain the outcomes they seek, the
latter are ruled by habit, passive acquiescence, the threat of raw power or, at
the limit, because of defeat in war or insurrection. Each of these
"games" may be formalized, and its solution reached at the lowest cost,
for society is persuaded to adopt a rule of choice-making (e.g. "the
dictator's word shall have the force of law," or "majority vote by
secret ballot shall be decisive").


.jpg)


















