Special interests must yield to the public interest. Individual interests are special interests. Thus, individual interests must yield to the public interest. This means, in practice, that individuals must be prevented by force from acting against the public interest. This widely shared conclusion is invalid.
Used this way, the “public interest” is an undefined and undefinable expression. It’s an incantation. If, as we are expected to believe, the “public interest” is the interest of the public, it does not exist, because “the public” is made of different individuals who each have his (or her, of course) own interest and tries to maximize his own utility (as he sees it). The public interest would literally only exist if all individuals were identical, that is, had the exact same preferences and values, and found themselves in the same particular circumstances.
Those who invoke the “public interest” are obliged to retreat in defining it as what a democratic political system decides. That does not make it the interest of the public but the interest of the numerical majority who consciously and knowingly vote for it. Aggregating the opinions of all voters in such a way that each one has an equal say and the result is coherent is a well-known mathematical impossibility, under certain reasonable conditions. The “public interest” typically turns out to be the outcome of political horse-trading and what politicians or bureaucrats put on the political agenda in the first place. In other words, the “public interest” is what is decided by those who have the power to impose their decisions on others. (See my “The Impossibility of Populism,” The Independent Review, Vol. 26, No. 1 [2021], pp. 15-25.)
Another way to rescue the “public interest” is to view it as the churning of private interests in the state’s cauldron. The state will give privileges to A at the expense of B, and then to B at the expense of A or C. Often, the state will simultaneously give to A and take from A, and the same for B and C. This churning will, on net, decrease the utility of everybody.
For a recent example (they are not difficult to find), see a piece of Financial Times columnist Rana Foroohar, who generally falls in love with any proposed government intervention which, she assumes, will not harm her: “How to make free trade fairer,” October 30, 2023. Her column, about what she calls “fair” trade, is best summarized by its subtitle:
It’s time to change settlement dispute systems that favour multinationals over countries — and their public interest.
So “countries” have “their” public interest? All the same public interest or a different one for each country? Isn’t any corporation and even multinational corporation a legal resident of one country? Aren’t the interests of its owners part of that country’s public interest? Or are they part of the world’s public interest? And how does Foroohar weigh the interests of the corporation’s owners (or its workers or customers) against the interests of some others in the country or in the world? She can only answer such questions in an arbitrary and authoritarian fashion.
For another recent example, consider Vice-President Kamala Harris speaking in London in front of a large slogan: “Artificial Intelligence: In Service of the Public Interest” (see “US Upstages Rishi Sunak with AI Regulation Plan,” Financial Times, November 1, 2023). Since the public interest does not exist, Ms. Harris in fact wants to impose by force her conception, or her tribe’s conception, or the current US government’s conception, of that dangerous unicorn.
I recently gave another example in my EconLog post “The Arbitrariness of the ‘Public Interest’.”
The only conceivable public interest resides in the common interest of all individuals to be equally free to each pursue his own interests within broad rules—which usually take a negative form, such as “Thou shall not kill.” This is the classical liberal ideal that James Buchanan and Friedrich Hayek* have explored. On this essential distinction between the common interest and the confused “public interest,” the last chapter of Geoffrey Buchanan and James Buchanan’s The Reason of Rules is enlightening, if sometimes disquieting. They argue that we can only speak of the public interest if and when some individuals voluntarily accept to support the costs of the collective action necessary to reform a state that does not correspond to the requirements of a unanimous social contract or the common interest of all individuals (see notably p. 163).
—————————————————-
* I provide an introduction to Friedrich Hayek’s social and legal thought in my separate reviews of the three volumes of his trilogy Law, Legislation, and Liberty: Volume 1, Rules and Order; Volume 2, The Mirage of Social Justice; and Volume 3, The Political Order of a Free People.
READER COMMENTS
Roger McKinney
Nov 7 2023 at 12:02pm
Great points! The only public interest is punishing murder, theft and kidnapping.
David Seltzer
Nov 7 2023 at 6:11pm
Roger, Good point. The 14th amendment as well. It ensures equal legal protection for all citizens. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause provide for safeguarding individual rights.
Mactoul
Nov 7 2023 at 7:43pm
There is an element of self-contradiction involved in arguing against public interest– you are presumably doing so because you deem it in public interest that there should be no concept of public interest.
In any case, war and quarantine in case of plague are classic instances when public interest is predominant. Yet you ignore these entirely.
Suppose a citizen of a city about to be besieged by an enemy has a house just outside the city walls.
Typically, the public interest would justify the city in destroying the house, otherwise the enemy might use the building to attack the city with greater convenience.
Monte
Nov 7 2023 at 8:30pm
Yes, “quarantine” during covid was hugely beneficial to the public interest, wasn’t it?
Matt
Nov 7 2023 at 8:48pm
I don’t think this is correct, you are not arguing that a public interest is against a public interest, it’s an argument that public interest is against all individual interests.
Jon Murphy
Nov 7 2023 at 9:25pm
Well, no. There is only a contradiction if you begin with the premise that there is a public interest.
Mactoul
Nov 7 2023 at 11:18pm
If the discussion here is not directed to public interest, then to what it is directed?
It is a political discourse, aimed to persuading people to revise their political opinions about political philosophies.
Jon Murphy
Nov 8 2023 at 12:25pm
Ok, but you’re still smuggling in a concept of “public interest” here. There is no contradiction.
Jon Murphy
Nov 7 2023 at 9:26pm
Let’s start at the beginning: precisely define “public interest.”
Mactoul
Nov 7 2023 at 11:15pm
Maybe define the public first. Is the public an arbitrary collection of individuals that happen to share a geographical location?
Jon Murphy
Nov 8 2023 at 7:04am
Ok. Define public then.
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 11:41pm
Webster 1913 is adequate:
1. Of or pertaining to the people; belonging to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; — opposed to private; as, the public treasury.
To a radical libertarian the people does not exist. Only arbitrary collections of individuals. Nations do not exist -only arbitrary boundaries (drawn up by God?). So, no pubic. And so no public interest
Jon Murphy
Nov 9 2023 at 8:41am
Two things:
First: I do not see how the definition of public you provide exlcudes “arbitrary collections of individuals.” A state, nation, or community are all collections of individuals. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to speak of the public as a collection of individuals.
Second: I don’t see how your reasoning “Nations do not exist -only arbitrary boundaries (drawn up by God?). So, no pubic. And so no public interest” applies here. I am asking you to define public interest. You seem to imply that “public” and “nation” are one and the same with your reasoning here.
Jose Pablo
Nov 7 2023 at 9:53pm
there should be no concept of public interest.
Is not that there should be no concept of public interest. It is that there is no such a thing as “public interest”. Whether it “should” be or not is totally irrelevant. “Public interest” simply, doesn’t exist.
Pierre’s is not a normative position. He simply illustrates here why the existence of such a thing as “public interest” cannot be positively defended.
Richard Fulmer
Nov 8 2023 at 12:30am
I think that Dr. Lemieux’s “only conceivable public interest” being based on negative rights is the beginning of a reasonable and workable “concept of the public interest.” Treating people equally under the law and preventing them from, or punishing them for, initiating force against others or defrauding others is in the public interest.
Granting special privileges to individuals or groups of individuals is not in the interest of the general public. Rather, it creates incentives for people to engage in a war of all against all to secure special rights.
If we (1) define “the public” as every citizen and not just a subset of citizens, even if that subset constitutes a majority, and (2) define the public’s “interest” as equal treatment under the law and as minimizing the initiation of violence (including the initiation of violence by government) then we have a sustainable working definition of the public good.
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 2:19am
The politico-legal order is just one component of public interest. Law and order, in sense of public safety is another.
Jose Pablo
Nov 8 2023 at 8:08am
Yes, Richard. But this is not how “Public Interest” is normally used.
And there is, maybe, other “workable concept of public interest”:
1.- Building on the best possible interpretation of Mactoul comments, even accepting that “public interest” (in its broadly used meaning) doesn’t exist, we can say that “pretending that there is such a thing as “public interest” is “positive” for human kind” (we, humans, use this “trick” quite frequently). This “pretending” became a normative position.
2.- Then we can define “public interest” as “any policy or action from the government with a positive outcome from a cost-benefit analysis“. We know interpersonal comparisons of utility can’t be done, but we “pretend” they can, because we hold the normative position that this belief is “positive for the public”.
Utilitarianism is a normative position advocated for by many minds I truly admire (including some of Pierre’s co-bloggers). And although I found De Jasay very convincing in one of Pierre’s favorite quotes; many sensible political thinkers refuse to go that far.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 8 2023 at 12:33am
Jose: Yes, like what people call unicorn does not exist. Whether there should be unicorns is not relevant.
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 2:17am
The Israeli government has barred employment of Palestinians, presumably in public interest.
Could this policy be made intelligible in terms not employing public interest. Presumably, the private interests of many Israeli employers, at least those who could trust their Palestinian employees were hurt.
Would you consider the Israeli Govt is basing its policies on non-existent imaginary things?
Jose Pablo
Nov 8 2023 at 8:37am
Would you consider the Israeli Govt is basing its policies on non-existent imaginary things?
Precisely so.
You are assuming that barring employment of Palestinians would reduce, by some factor, the probabilities of Hamas carrying on more of its deplorable acts of terrorism, and so, that by doing this you will save Israeli lives.
You have no clue about this “reduction factor” or about how many lives will be saved.
On the other hand, as you mention, this policy will hurt employers. And will hurt Palestinian employees. Take into account that even if you only consider “Israeli Utility” in your calculations, some Israelis’ utility will be reduced due to the suffering of innocent Palestinians. Some other Israelis’ utility will certainly be increased by the suffering of innocent Palestinians, so, you have to take this into account too.
Now, you get all these changes in “individual interests” and add them up (don’t ask for help, you put yourself in this situation).
It is crystal clear by now that the “result” of this considerations is a “non-existent imaginary thing”.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 8 2023 at 10:04am
José: It’s like, “The public interest is my opinion. Better believe me, or else…”
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 11:52pm
Invalid meaning what? That it doesn’t happen or it shouldn’t happen?
It happens all the time. Right now, Israel’s our own state has barred the citizens from employing Palestinians. So, is the position is the Israel government is deluded and the best policy would be to let the citizens employ Palestinians as they deem fit.
Jose Pablo
Nov 9 2023 at 7:42am
Invalid meaning what?
Meaning that “individuals must be prevented by force from acting against the public interest” and “individuals must be prevented by force from acting against God will” are exactly and precisely the same sentence.
Both have been used profusely meaning “individuals must be prevented by force from acting against the ruler’s wishes”
Jose Pablo
Nov 9 2023 at 7:49am
the best policy would be
The “best policy”, for whom?
It is, maybe, the “best policy” for some. It is not the “best policy” for “other some”. Both “some” and “other some” are Israelis.
James Anderson Merritt
Nov 11 2023 at 5:40pm
Pierre Lemieux wrote:
I prefer it in French: “L’État, c’est moi” 😀
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 11 2023 at 6:53pm
James: Indeed!
Monte
Nov 8 2023 at 11:48am
Is arriving at a concrete definition for something as abstract as “the public interest” even possible? Social science defines it as “the welfare or well-being of the general public.” In legal terms, it is defined as “the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection.” Both are tautologies.
Any attempt to settle on a more rigorous definition, it seems to me, would have to start with Bentham’s principle of utility and an application of his hedonic calculus to what he called “evils of the first and second order.” Expanding on this principle is J. S. Mills’ proof as articulated in his essay, Utilitarianism. In part:
Accepting the premise that “the general happiness” and “the public interest” are fungible goods, we must determine what meets the criteria for the general happiness of a stable society and are now faced with the task of defining what the general happiness is.
At this point, we throw up our hands when it comes to providing a definition for either term that is universally acceptable. At best, we can follow the lead of what US Supreme Court Justice Stevens famously said about pornography: “I know it when I see it”.
Monte
Nov 8 2023 at 5:57pm
Drilling down a bit further, I find Bentham’s definition of “universal interest” a suitable enough substitute for “public interest” and one that comes reasonably close to answering Pierre’s question: What in Heaven’s Name is the Public Interest?:
Bentham insisted that the advancement of the universal interest is the “ultimate end of government and the aim of all morality.”
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 9 2023 at 2:56pm
Monte: Interesting comment! I still prefer the “common interest,” which is net of costs and therefore does not imply any “sacrifice” of individual interests. Of course, Benthan had not read Buchanan, Tullock, Brennan, et al.
Matthias
Nov 8 2023 at 7:21pm
If you are referring to Arrow’s Theorem, that one is much narrower than what you are describing here. (What you are describing might still be impossible, but that wouldn’t be because of Arrow’s well known theorem.)
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 8 2023 at 9:37pm
Matthias: If elections are supposed to aggregate the opinions of all voters on what is the public interest, or into the public interest, Arrow’s theorem or the Condorcet paradox is relevant. That’s only part of my critique of the “public interest” (on this, you are right), but it is still a part of it.
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 11:46pm
Naturally, what do you expect. The battle for what public interest is fought out between individuals, including what is being done or attempted here.
This is methodological individualism. Unlike where you postulate malignant entities like State or government.
Mactoul
Nov 8 2023 at 11:55pm
Correct. And what is problem with it. Why is it invalid.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 9 2023 at 12:04pm
Mactoul: The opposite theory is not necessarily easy to grasp, especially if one has been spoon-fed old tribal or authoritarian intuitions since one’s birth. (Like others, it took me some time to understand.) And tribal or authoritarian ideas have also been “gene-fed,” as Hayek explains in his last book, The Fatal Conceit, which I would also recommend that you read. (It is not a technical book, although some knowledge of economics helps.)
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Nov 9 2023 at 1:07am
Three things are often perversely treated as if one:
• universal interest
• wide-spread interest
• a supposed maximum of well-being summed across persons
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 9 2023 at 2:58pm
Daniel: Would you agree that “universal interest” is better named “common interest,” since the latter more clearly does not imply the sacrifice of individual interests in a net sense for every individual?
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Nov 9 2023 at 4:34pm
A universal interest would properly refer to an interest held by each member of the relevant universe of discourse. Whether readers and listeners would recognize that aspect of “universal interest” is another matter.
Ideally, a name that appears to be a proper description would be both. But, as a practical matter, the terms “common good” and “common interest” seem lost as descriptions, because of how they have been used as names. All three of the things that I listed have been called “the common good” and “the common interest”.
One is compelled to draw distinction each time. And, often, even with those distinctions explicitly drawn, readers will plow ahead, as if two or three very different ideas are just one.
Wendy
Nov 10 2023 at 3:59pm
Define “public interest.”
OK, as an author, I’ll take the literary approach: Your thoughts are “private”; when you make them available to others (be it by writing them down or speaking them), you “publish” them, or make them “public.” So “public interests” are those interests held/used by a multitude (like roads that everyone uses, the resources of public libraries, real estate that everyone has a right to access), as opposed to “private interests” (like your stamp collection, the cooking of Japanese/Guyana fusion dishes, or carving chains out of pencil leads).
Or does someone have some other words to label this concept?
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 11 2023 at 2:05pm
Wendy: You ask the right question. Let me try to reformulate my answer. If the public interest is what you say it is, everybody in the public should agree, including those who never use public libraries and environmentalists who are against roads (or at least opposed to new ones). If the public interest is what some Evangelicals say it is, a theocracy should rule in the very interests of souls who will otherwise be damned for eternity. In all such cases, the supposed “public interest” is in fact the individual interests of only part of the public.
Still another word for the so-called “public interest” is what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called the “general interest,” which is in fact the interest of the state: In The Social Contract, he wrote:
Perhaps what you are after is what James Buchanan or Friedrich Hayek (or, I would say, most of the classical liberals) thought was the common interest of all individuals, that is, the right of each to pursue his own interests (within very broad and abstract rules). This short characterization is far from solving all problems, but calling it “the public interest” or “the general interest” is sowing confusion.
Jim Glass
Nov 12 2023 at 11:22pm
So I’m a volunteer fireman in my little town. My compatriots and I are on call at all hours, to get a cat out of a tree, deal with auto accidents (along with our volunteer ambulance guys!) and occasionally even take some real personal risk to reduce the risk of injury and loss to others during fires.
Are we serving the public interest in our little community?
Or are we the dupes of some Leviathan manipulating us in our ignorance for its own greedy benefit? If so, we’d like to have the scales knocked off our unseeing eyes — so please explain!
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 13 2023 at 12:15am
Jim: What you do is certainly in the interest of many people in your community. What a local McDonald’s burger flipper does is certainly also in the interest of many people in your community. The question is whether these activities are in the interest of the public, which is everybody; or more precisely whether everybody agrees with a rule mandating that everybody is obliged to pay for the services of the fireman and the burger flipper. Of course, if a volunteer fireman is a part-time altruist not paid out of taxes, that’s “good” because he chooses to do it freely. You see what the problem is?
Indeed, some political theorists or philosophers (such as Anthony de Jasay or Michael Huemer) argue that “public goods” such as firefighting could be supplied by voluntary associations or voluntarily financed businesses.
The problem with the “public interest” is that everybody has his own opinion of what it is, an opinion which is, because of private interests, nearly as diversified as individuals are. If the “public interest” is not the interest of all the public, whose interest is it? That’s the individualist way to set the problem. Perhaps rereading my post should make this clearer?
Comments are closed.