Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Individualism: Individualism is a political philosophy that emphasizes the intrinsic worth of the individual. It is often contrasted with collectivism, which emphasizes the importance of the group over the individual. See also Society, Community, Political philosophy._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
James M. Buchanan on Individualism - Dictionary of Arguments
Boudreaux I 60 Individualism/Buchanan/Boudreaux/Holcombe: Buchanan’s individualistic perspective is based on two insights. The first is that individuals know their own interests better than does anyone else, so they should be responsible for making choices to further their goals. The second and more foundational insight is that liberty is a fundamental value in its own right, and so institutions should be designed to promote and preserve individual liberty. Once again, this individualistic perspective implies that the welfare of a group can mean nothing more than the welfare of all of the individuals in the group. To further individual welfare, institutions should be designed to facilitate individual cooperation so that all individuals agree that their actions improve their well-being. Market institutions are ethical because they are based on the voluntary cooperation of individuals who engage in exchange. Buchanan judged political institutions by the same standards. Those who are subject to them should be in agreement that those institutions further their welfare. The ethical problem that arises with governmental institutions is that, ultimately, they are based on force rather than on agreement. The threat always exists that a protective state strong enough to protect individual rights, and a productive state extensive enough to supply public goods, can expand beyond their boundaries and violate the very individual rights that it is meant to protect. If such an abusive institution emerges, it is what Buchanan called “the predatory state.” An ethical government is one that citizens agree furthers their own individual ends. Boudreaux I 61 Much of Buchanan’s work focuses on determining when this is the case, and how governmental institutions can better conform with this norm of voluntary agreement without abusing its powers. Ultimately, Buchanan says, The justificatory foundation for a liberal social order lies, in my understanding, in the normative premise that individuals are the ultimate sovereigns in matters of social organization, that individuals are the beings who are entitled to choose the organizational-institutional structure under which they live. (Buchanan, 1999(1): 288) >Individuals/Buchanan, >Economic ethics/Buchanan, >Decision-making/Buchanan, >Samaritan’s dilemma/Buchanan. Boudreaux I 75 Individualism/politics/Buchanan/Boudreaux/Holcombe: The only way to be sure that any public policy is in the best interest of a group of people is if it is in the best interest of every member of the group. Therefore, the only way to determine if particular public policies are in the public interest is to have them approved unanimously. But of course it’s impractical to require that literally everyone consent to each and every proposed government action before that action is taken. With such a requirement, government would get nothing done. Yet Buchanan, convinced that people do indeed want both a protective state and a productive state, understood that people want government to be able to act. They want government to protect their persons and rights, and to supply collective consumption goods and services such as roads and wastewater treatment. >State/Buchanan, >Social contract/Buchanan. 1. Buchanan, James M. (1999). The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty. Liberty Fund. - - - Gaus I 102 Individualism/Buchanan/Tullock/Gaus: Writing in the early 1960s, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock adamantly defended the ‘individualistic postulate’ against all forms of ‘organicism’: ‘This [organicist] approach or theory of the collectivity … is essentially opposed to the Western philosophical tradition in which the human individual is the primary philosophical entity’ (1965(1): 11–12). Human beings, insisted Buchanan and Tullock, are the only real choosers and decision-makers, and their preferences determine both public and private actions. The renascent individualism of late-twentiethcentury liberalism was closely bound up with the induction of Hobbes as a member of the liberal pantheon. Hobbes’s relentlessly individualistic account of society, and the manner in which his analysis of the state of nature lent itself to game-theoretic modelling, yielded a highly individualist, formal analysis of the liberal state and liberal morality (see Buchanan, 1975(2); Hampton, 1986(3)). cf. >Individualism/Ritchie, >Individualism/Spencer. 1. Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock (1965) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 2. Buchanan, James M. (1975) The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3. Hampton, Jean (1986) Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaus, Gerald F. 2004. „The Diversity of Comprehensive Liberalisms.“ In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
EconBuchan I James M. Buchanan Politics as Public Choice Carmel, IN 2000 Boudreaux I Donald J. Boudreaux Randall G. Holcombe The Essential James Buchanan Vancouver: The Fraser Institute 2021 Boudreaux II Donald J. Boudreaux The Essential Hayek Vancouver: Fraser Institute 2014 Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Buchanan
> Counter arguments in relation to Individualism
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
