Jim writes
>obviously, these decisions cannot be made by Joanna alone. Instead, such >decisions -- what is adequate variety? what products are allowed? -- have >to be made democratically by the population as a whole, and following >democratic principles more profound than those that prevail in the U.S. They do? So if Joanna were the median voter on the Pepsi vs. Coke question, that would be all right with you? How about if the median voter decided that aspirin were a good enough pain reliever...or that no substitutes for aspartame (or something like it) were necessary...or that mussels were "essentially identical" to oysters...or that peanuts were preferable to pretzels on airline flights? These decisions are unobjectionable so long as they're "made democratically"? Or to use Justin's example, suppose the (adult-consensual) pursuit of someone's sexual preferences depended on the use of goods that were "democratically" deemed to be unnecessary and/or undesirable? That's appropriate? I guess I'm asking if you see any place here for what in political language would be called "minority rights," and if so, what implications would that have for the scope of democratic will in the determination of product variety? >It should be pointed out that there's nothing radical at all about a >government restricting the consumption of an item. After all, marijuana is >illegal in the U.S. Also, governments have said a lot about what >"adequate" variety is: the Pentagon, for example, has tried to veto the >merger of military-industrial firms so as to allow the P to choose. > >What's radical is subordinating the government -- and thus the market -- >to democratic will. Well, I agree it's *one* version of "what's radical." But certainly not the only. It would also be radical to subordinate government and certain *types* of market activities to democratic will. The illegalization of marijuana has proven extremely hurtful to some--minor users serving long prison terms, law-abiding sufferers of glaucoma or the effects of chemotherapy--who would perhaps not find it comforting if this ban were in fact the expression of "democratic will" (which perhaps it is). I'm not sure this example is the best starting point in the case for extending the reach of collective decisionmaking to *all* would-be market transactions. >Gil
