Public choice theory and its methodological-individualist foundations can be illustrated with a currently hot question: Will President Trump order an attack on Iranian military assets?
It is, of course, not “the American people” who will decide; nobody has had lunch with him or her. (On this point, see my Independent Review article “The Impossibility of Populism.”) Although Mr. Trump wields extraordinary power, he will be influenced by his entourage, that is, mainly courtiers, minions, and cronies around him, and some individuals in his party’s remaining centers of influence. He will, if only intuitively, take into account the deep divisions on war issues within his voters’ base, as well as his pacifist or isolationist electoral promises. But his choice will still depend on how he analyzes or “feels” the situation. He may try or claim to protect the “US interest,” but such a thing does not exist since the 260 million American adults have diverse preferences and interests that cannot be arithmetically added up. Mr. Trump would not know how to think in terms of some rule-based common interest as conceptualized by constitutional political economy (an offshoot of public choice theory). The “US interest” is what he defines or conceives or imagines as such.
Like on other topics—the results of the 2020 election, TikTok, presidential pardons, Haitians eating American pets, the compromission of the Department of Justice, the further militarization of the police, the decentralization of American federalism, the effect of tariffs, the growth of the public debt, the well-being and opportunities of ordinary people, and so on and so forth—Mr. Trump’s decision will be influenced by his own interests as he sees them.
This does not imply that another strongman—perhaps a saint or a wise man cognizant of the considerations above—could not be guided by other motivations. For example, he (or she, of course) could incorporate in his decisions a true concern for his fellow humans and for the future of liberty and a free society, but it would still be his conception of such concerns. This being said, prudence and analytical rigor strongly suggest that we assume rulers typically follow their personal interests.
Note also that the considerations above apply whether one believes or not that, in the present case, destroying the Iranian state’s capacity to acquire nuclear weapons is justified.
All these considerations confirm how dangerous it is to leave important state decisions largely in the hands of one individual, even if he is a genius anointed by 49.8% of American voters. The classical liberal and libertarian doctrine, developed over the last three or four centuries, defends the necessity of constraining and dividing state power.
******************************
One scenario for the Fordow enrichment site in Iran
READER COMMENTS
Atanu Dey
Jun 18 2025 at 5:38pm
Pierre:
Your essay brilliantly delivered what you promised — illustrate the methodological-individualist foundations of public choice theory — and did it concisely. I loves me another lesson on public choice whenever I finds it. Thank you.
(Typo alert: the population of the US is ~340 million, of which ~260 million are adults.)
Atanu Dey
Jun 18 2025 at 6:13pm
Prompted by the fine hand drawn (by AI) illustration, today I learned from Brave that —
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 18 2025 at 10:10pm
Thanks, Atanu, for spotting my error— a product of uncoordinated edits I did on my drafts.
Craig
Jun 18 2025 at 9:03pm
“Will President Trump order an attack on Iranian military assets?”
Derka derka, I mean, perhaps but this time? Somebody better ask if Iran can hit places like Marathon Catlettsburg. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t. I’m asking, can they? I don’t know, if anybody knows let me know, thanks.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 18 2025 at 10:18pm
Craig: The problem, as I see it, is that one can wait until the bullet shot by a thug is close enough to see it or shoot as soon as the thug points his gun. But I agree that the problem is more complicated than that.
Craig
Jun 19 2025 at 11:33am
At what point is oreemptive self defense justified. Difficult question for sure.
David Seltzer
Jun 19 2025 at 12:00pm
Pierre wrote, “The problem, as I see it, is that one can wait until the bullet shot by a thug is close enough to see it or shoot as soon as the thug points his gun. But I agree that the problem is more complicated than that.” From NCRI reports, Iran’s aggressive steps, including a dramatic acceleration of uranium enrichment to 60% purity, which is nearing the 90% threshold required for nuclear weapons. Having spoken to nuclear engineers, the time to 90% enrichment is very short. I suspect this was part of Bibi’s reason to attack three Iranian nuke facilities. Netanyahu was not waiting for the shot, he saw Iran pointing the gun. I suspect his personal interest is his survival and the survival of the state of Israel.
Mactoul
Jun 19 2025 at 12:02am
Does public choice theory deliver any insight that would surprise Machiavelli?
Recently a post appeared on how Adam Smith, by reckoning up pounds and shillings, showed that the American colonies were not a net benefit to British Crown. Question is, does it mean that American colonies were not in British national or public interest? Did Adam Smith showed that there exists a public interest?
When one criticizes a govt policy, doesn’t one presume that there exists a public interest which is harmed by the said policy?
Arnold Kling says that State consists of rules and roles. So, Trump is acting in the role of president. Of course, nobody claims that this precludes him from considering his personal interests. But this is far from saying that Trump is influenced only by his personal interests. Of course, you don’t precisely say so outright but the formulation you choose that Trump’s decision will be influenced by his personal interests (whatever they be) is rather vacuous in its weak form.
Scott Sumner
Jun 19 2025 at 1:13am
“But this is far from saying that Trump is influenced only by his personal interests.”
Is this claim still controversial?
Mactoul
Jun 19 2025 at 2:32am
What personal interests could be figuring in the present context– not obvious at all. Is the claim that Trump, at present, is moved only by some personal interests and not at all by the national interests?
Or that the national interests don’t exist, only individual interests? But in that case Trump is entirely unexceptionable– all individuals are solely moved by their personal interests, by definition.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 19 2025 at 10:15am
Mactoul: You ask, “What personal interests could be figuring in the present context– not obvious at all.” Vanity, success with women, vengeance, adventure, love of power…
Jose Pablo
Jun 20 2025 at 1:47pm
In Nixon’s case, we don’t have to ask; we can simply listen to the answers.
And in all likelihood, Trump is far closer to Nixon than to Washington.
Knut P. Heen
Jun 19 2025 at 5:42am
Public choice was developed as an alternative to the benevolent dictator model of economics. It was a huge step in a scientific direction. We do not need more than one observation to falsify the benevolent dictator model.
Jon Murphy
Jun 19 2025 at 9:43am
No. Why? Some may argue that, but “public interest” not a presumption of government policy (criticism or support).
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 19 2025 at 10:32am
Mactoul: You write:
Not at all. I suggest that this presumption is your basic error. That’s the box you need to think out of. The “public interest” is unascertainable except as either the personal interest of the ruler (or the result of horse-trading between rulers) or the set of rules unanimously accepted. On the latter, Buchanan and Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent is unavoidable. To get a faint glimpse, reread my post “What in Heaven’s Name Is the Public Interest? which contains other citations.
Mactoul
Jun 19 2025 at 2:27am
Isn’t the American Constitution informed by the best of classical liberalism and carefully designed separation of powers and which has stood the test of time.
Trump acts within the same Constitution as did other wartime presidents — Lincoln, Roosevelt– revered presidents too.
He is the president with Constitutional authority and responsibility to decide. So I don’t understand the quibbling. You say how dangerous is to leave this decision largely in hands of one person. But what other way do you suggest which would be more in accord with classical liberalism?
Is American Constitution inadequate?
Jon Murphy
Jun 19 2025 at 7:20am
Part of the problem, mon ami, is that Trump is not acting within the same constitutional authority of his predecessors. Even a casual read of the Constitution shows that. For example, show me where in the Constitution the President is allowed to declare war.
Monte
Jun 19 2025 at 12:14pm
Trump has not acted differently than most of his modern predecessors in ordering limited military actions or troop movements without a formal declaration of war.
Jon Murphy
Jun 19 2025 at 1:17pm
We are still missing Congressional authorization
Mactoul
Jun 20 2025 at 4:08am
These aren’t leisurely times where you can afford debates and ultimatums. Success of this operation depends upon deception and stealth. However, it is possible to have debates and Congressional resolutions as a part of the deception.
Mactoul
Jun 19 2025 at 9:38pm
War decision is necessarily made by a very small group, if not one man then ten. Lemieux is asking why the entire population is not consulted. No constitutional arrangement, dreamt or undreamed, is so capable.
This is again an example of egalitarianism inherent in liberalism. The liberal countries made use of illiberal exceptions to handle such failures of liberalism.
Jose Pablo
Jun 20 2025 at 12:25pm
Isn’t the American Constitution informed by the best of classical liberalism and carefully designed separation of powers
Yes, it was, at least by the standards of 1787 and based on the intellectual understanding of the time. It was, without doubt, an outstanding practical expression of Enlightenment ideals.
But we, as human beings, have significantly advanced our intellectual understanding over the past 250 years. It would be deeply disappointing, indeed, a failure of our capacity for progress, if the “best design” of 1787 were still the best we could achieve today.
and which has stood the test of time.
Not at all. If anything, the test of time has eroded the core principles of the American Constitution, especially its foundation in individual liberty. That erosion has come largely through the ever-growing power asserted by the executive branch, which now routinely operates beyond the checks the Framers intended.
Roger McKinney
Jun 19 2025 at 11:06am
Great points! We can thank Democrats for creating an imperial presidency. But Republicans, too, love that power and refuse to weaken it. As Augustine wrote, the lust for power is one of humanity’s greatest evils.
Warren Platts
Jun 19 2025 at 3:06pm
You people are way overthinking this. When a nation whose national motto is “Death to America” is trying to develop nuclear bombs, and we have the chance to derail that project with a couple of airstrikes, we gotta do it. End of story…
Jose Pablo
Jun 20 2025 at 11:10am
destroying the Iranian state’s capacity to acquire nuclear weapons is justified.
But what does justified really mean in this context?
It must rest on some form of utilitarian reasoning. But as you often point out, that kind of calculation makes no rational sense.
It’s not just that interpersonal utility comparisons are logically incoherent—and morally troubling when they involve human lives. It’s also that the probabilities involved are highly speculative. Only one country in history—the United States—has ever used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. The compound probability that Iran might both acquire a nuclear weapon and choose to use it is, frankly, anyone’s guess.
Meanwhile, the deaths of (at the very least) 24 people as a direct result of the Israeli strike were almost a certainty ex ante.
Would Netanyahu have ordered the operation if he had known with certainty that the 24 people killed would be his own closest family members? I wouldn’t. I doubt he would either.
And if we truly believe that all lives have equal value—as we claim to in principle—then the 24 lives actually lost are just as valuable as the lives of Netanyahu’s 24 closest relatives.
No, I don’t think that the loss of human lives can ever be “justified.”
David Seltzer
Jun 20 2025 at 5:23pm
Jose. You are out of your depth here! I’ve lived in Israel and the threats have been acted on repeatedly. As for your reference to compound probability, are the events independent, Bayesian or just dependent? However calculated, even a low pr with high negative outcome…nuke strike…justifies Israel’s pre-emptive strike. FYI. Netanyahu has lost family in various battles. His brother Yonatan was killed in the raid at Entebbe. Bibi has been wounded in battle as well.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 21 2025 at 11:33am
Jose: You write:
I suggest that this claim is not defensible, and that no utilitarian calculation is required to show that. The loss of human life or lives is justified in the case of self-defense. This is true not only against the aggressor directly, but also when innocent shields and innocent threats are involved (remember Nozick’s discussion?).
When groups are involved, the problem is more complicated, but not in the case of unanimity. Suppose individuals in your society have unanimously agreed to something like the rule that “Though shall not kill except somebody who is pointing his gun in a threatening manner without legitimate reasons.” (This rule is not necessarily circular when embedded in a set of rules.) That would apply to Khamenei and his minions (and his gun! you can certainly target his gun!) as to any petty criminal.
Jose Pablo
Jun 21 2025 at 1:46pm
While Nozick’s theory of just war and the use of human shields justifies the killing of innocent Iranians, I fail to see how it applies to the loss of Israeli civilian lives, which were the focus of my comment.
The claim that a preemptive attack is “justified” as an act of self-defense runs into a fundamental problem: the definition of this “self.” Because such a decision affects many individuals, its “justification” relies on a utilitarian calculation—namely, that the value of Israeli lives potentially saved from avoiding a future Iranian nuclear attack outweighs the value of the Israeli lives lost in the retaliatory response to the preemptive strike.
But this kind of calculation lacks universality. Different individuals will assign different values and probabilities to the variables involved. Particularly so ex-ante. As a result, conclusions will vary from person to person, undermining any shared or objective basis for calling the act “justified.” In practice, “justified” in this context ends up meaning little more than “because the decision-makers believe so.”
If such an analysis is attempted at all, decision-makers should at least:
a) value the Israeli lives at risk in retaliation as highly as those most personally important to them, andb) rigorously assess the actual likelihood of an Iranian nuclear attack, bearing in mind that such an event has occurred only once in history, and that toppling the Iranian regime could increase, rather than decrease, that risk.
Ultimately, because the analysis depends so heavily on subjective inputs, such decisions are far more likely to reflect the personal preferences and biases of those in power, not any universally valid or widely accepted reasoning. My objection was to labeling that “justified.”
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 21 2025 at 2:22pm
Jose: I agree there is a problem with the self. But it could be much attenuated if we can presume that all the rational “selfs” have agreed on a rule other than total pacifism or “sacrificial-lambness.” As you point out, there remains a problem of uncertainty about the future. But it is the same as when you accept a rule saying that in punishing criminals, false positives relative to false negatives must be, say, 10% or 1%. De Jasay would probably argue that “conventions” (evolved rules) settle those issues, which may or may not be true; and tribal norms are not necessarily softer than formal decisions by liberal governments under unanimously-presumed constitutional rules. I tend to think that thugs should not have nuclear weapons. I also think that leaving related evaluations to individuals like Trump or Netanyahu is not a stroke of constitutional genius, to say the least.
Nothing is perfect, but the ideal of unanimity (which is roughly the ideal of free trade) is less imperfect than anything else.
David Seltzer
Jun 21 2025 at 4:52pm
Pierre wrote: “Nothing is perfect, but the ideal of unanimity (which is roughly the ideal of free trade) is less imperfect than anything else.” Agree, or as Sir Winston opined; “Except for all the others.” Especially when individuals experience the negative effects of free trade being corrupted by onerous regulations, mercantilism and tariffs.
Jose Pablo
Jun 20 2025 at 11:31am
On this topic, Nixon and the Vietnam War is, in all likelihood, a far more instructive example.
We know why Nixon prolonged the war, thanks to his very helpful habit of secretly recording White House conversations. Spoiler alert: American youth kept dying in Vietnam not to protect clear national interests, but to serve Nixon’s political calculations aimed at electoral gain (by the way, thanks to those tapes, we also know that Nixon believed the deaths of four students at Kent State under National Guard fire could help to “calm down” the protests. A chilling precedent, especially in today’s political climate.)
And Trump should know this well—after all, he avoided the Vietnam draft. Which suggests that he believes (or he, at least, did back then) that the so-called “American interest” wasn’t worth risking a life. He was right back then.
Comments are closed.