I wrote:> >obviously, these decisions [about what products are allowed and how much variety is best] 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? <
democracy is more than this kind of silly model of voting (the median voter rule). I highly recommend Lars Udehn's book (1996. The Limits of Public Choice: A Sociological Critique of the Economic Theory of Politics. London: Routledge), for a great (logical and empirical) critique of the whole neoclassical theory of politics.
In any event, democracy does not mean simply "majority rule." It also involves "minority rights." People value rights for themselves as individuals, so they are willing to grant rights to others... In fact, they might decide to allow markets under certain circumstances.
Also, my point was (and is) that _all_ societies put limits on what kind of products are available to consumers. The question is how this decision should be made: should it be made by a self-perpetuating state bureaucracy? by a class of hereditary nobles? by a self-perpetuating class of rich people? or should it be made democratically?
Jim
