Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions:A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation TOR Aaron Wildavsky The American Political Science Review,Vol.81,No.1.(Mar.,1987),pp.3-22. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28198703%2981%3A1%3C3%3ACPBCIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F The American Political Science Review is currently published by American Political Science Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use,available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html.JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides,in part,that unless you have obtained prior permission,you may not download an entire issue of a joural or multiple copies of articles,and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work.Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/apsa.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals.For more information regarding JSTOR,please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org/ Sun Nov1915:30:152006
CHOOSING PREFERENCES BY CONSTRUCTING INSTITUTIONS: A CULTURAL THEORY OF PREFERENCE FORMATION AARON WILDAVSKY University of California Berkeley D I references come from the most ubiquitous human activity:living with other people.Support for and opposition to different ways of life, the shared values legitimating social relations (here called cultures)are the generators of diverse preferences.After discussing why it is not helpful to conceive of interests as preferences or to dismiss preference formation as external to organized social life,I explain how people are able to develop many preferences from few clues by using their social relations to interrogate their environment.The social filter is the source of preferences.I then argue that culture is a more powerful construct than conceptual rivals:heuristics,schemas,ideologies.Two initial applications-to the ideology of the left-right distinctions and to perceptions of danger-test the claim that this theory of how individuals use political cultures to develop their preferences outperforms the alternatives. The question of where political ideas come science.Although it is eminently reason- from is not only highly deserving of study, able to study-as most of us,including but also within the competence of our con- myself,have throughout our professional temporary research techniques.I join Bill Riker in commending it to you as one of the lifetimes-how people try to get what truly exciting and significant areas of inves- they want through political activity,it is tigation in our field. also unreasonable to neglect the study -Herbert Simon of why people want what they want.To omit or slight the most important reason Agreement on political fundamentals cries all of us have for studying politics,name- for an explanation.Why,how,through ly,educating our preferences,is a par- which mechanisms do people come to think ticularly unfortunate lapse for scholars. alike about political fundamentals? I am making a double argument:first, -Charles E.Lindblom on behalf of the usefulness of a cultural approach in general(rooting explanation in social life)and,second,on behalf of a The particular cultural theory(cultures char- acterized by boundedness and prescrip- formation of political preferences ought tion).Readers might find the first more to be one of the major subjects of political persuasive than the second.There may be AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL.81 NO.1 MARCH,1987
American Political Science Review Vol.81 better formulations.My brief for the cul- they are conferred on objects or events tural theory that follows is based upon the through social interaction. usual criteria of parsimony and power, If the interests that we consider ours are that is,getting the most explanatory and indeed the products of social relations, predictive capacity from the fewest varia- then the origins of our preferences may be bles.Challenges and improvements are found in the deepest desires of all:how we welcome. wish to live with other people and how we wish others to live with us."The real Interests As Preferences moment of choosing,"as Mary Douglas (1983)maintains,"is...choice of com- Ask political scientists where prefer- rades and their way of life"(p.45).But ences come from and if they don't just that fateful choice,while broad,is not stop the conversation with "haven't a unlimited. clue"or refer disparagingly to the mud- The first choice-the available com- dle over ideology,you are likely to hear binations of values and practices-is that ubiquitous catch-all term"interests." made for us.Human beings do not choose Preferences presumably come from the in- what they want,like ordering a la carte, terests people have.Indeed,a sweeping any more than they (so far)select their review of the literature done by Michael body parts in any size or shape they want, Thompson and Michiel Schwarz (1985) regardless of the configuration into which tells us what we already suspect:politics these have to fit.Preference formation is of interests is the mainstay of political. much more like ordering prix fixe from a science.1 Yet,if preferences come from number of set dinners or voting a party interests,how do people figure out what ticket.Only those combinations that are their interests are (presumably,these do socially viable,that can cohere because not come with a birth certificate or social people are able to give them their allegi- security card)so they will know what ance,to share their meanings,may be they prefer?For if interests and prefer- lived.Some things-accepting authority ences are synonymous,we still are no while rejecting it-just can't be done. wiser about how people come to have Only second-level choices (which of the them. available ways of life do I prefer7)and In the beginning,apparently,there third-level choices (which policies do I were interests-lumpy,fully formed psy- believe are efficacious in supporting my chological facts,self-evident and self- preferred way?)are potentially available explanatory.How any one of us would to choice.If preferences are formed come to know what our interests are need through the organization of social rela- not matter if they are derived from im- tions,however,these preferences must mediate sense perception.Individuals, come from inside,not from outside,our presumably,size up the situation,dis- ways of life-from institutional arrange- tinguish opposing interests,separate the ments. interests of others from self-interest,and choose (or choose not to choose)the self. Instead of this phenomenological under- Preferences Are Endogenous, standing-interests are self-evident,chis- Not Exogenous eled in stone on objects that force them- selves as they are upon human perception Ask an economist where preferences -I would rely on the convergence of cer- come from and you will be told that they tain strands of work in social science, are exogenous,external to the system according to which meanings are shared; being considered.2 The motive force for
1987 Constructing Institutions participation in markets,the desire to do from the social relations they rationalize, better through living a life of bidding and and there are no social relations in which bargaining by competing for resources,is people do not give reasons for or other- ruled out as a noneconomic question! wise attempt to justify their behavior. Worse still,preferences are referred to as When choices are not completely con- "tastes,"for which,as the saying goes, trolled by conditions (cultural theory there is no accounting,thus rendering holds),people discover their preferences them not merely noneconomic but non- by evaluating how their past choices have analyzable. strengthened or weakened (and their The difficulty for economics conceived future choices might strengthen or as rational choice is stated cogently by R. weaken)their way of life.Put plainly, T.Michael and G.S.Becker(1976): people decide for or against existing authority.They construct their culture in For economists to rest a large part of their theory the process of decision making.Their con- of choice on differences in tastes is disturbing tinuing reinforcement,modification,and since they admittedly have no useful theory of the formation of tastes,nor can they rely on a rejection of existing power relationships well-developed theory of tastes from any other teaches them what to prefer. discipline in the social sciences,since none exists. "If political preferences are molded ..The weakness in the received theory of through political experiences,or by politi- choice,then,is the extent to which it relies on differences in tastes to "explain"behavior when cal institutions,"James March and Johan it can neither explain how tastes are formed nor Olsen(1984)state,"it is awkward to have predict their effects.(in Burt 1982,347-48) a theory that presumes preferences are Nevertheless,Becker goes on to state that exogenous to the political process' "all human behavior can be viewed as (p.739).Cultural theory,by contrast, involving participants who maximize gives preferences an endogenous political their utility from a stable set of prefer- explanation:preferences are formed ences"(p.348).If preferences are fixed through opposing and supporting in- and outside the process of choice,then we stitutions. cannot inquire into how preferences are Rejecting a social science that begins at formed.The least interesting behavior, the end by assuming interests,I wish to instrumental actions,may be explained make what people want-their desires, by preferences;but about the most inter- preferences,values,ideals-into the cen- esting,preferences themselves,nothing at tral subject of our inquiry.By classifying all can be said.Lindblom is right:"We people,their strategies,and their social have impoverished our thought by im- contexts into the cultural biases that form prisoning it in an unsatisfactory model of their preferences,cultural theory attempts preferences taken as given"(1982,335). to explain and predict recurrent regulari- Cultural theory,by contrast,is based ties and transitions in their behavior. on the premise that preferences are en- Preferences in regard to political objects dogenous-internal to organizations-so are not external to political life;on the that they emerge from social interaction contrary,they constitute the very internal in defending or opposing different ways essence,the quintessence of politics:the of life.When individuals make important construction and reconstruction of our decisions,these choices are simultaneous- lives together. ly choices of culture-shared values legiti- mating different patterns of social prac- Deriving Preferences from tices.Always,in cultural theory,shared values and social relations go together: Cultures:Four Ways of Life there are no disembodied values apart Cultural theory is based on the axiom 5
American Political Science Review Vol.81 Figure 1.Models of Four Cultures Strength of Group Boundaries Number and Variety of Prescriptions Weak Strong Numerous and varied Apathy Hierarchy (Fatalism) (Collectivism) Few and similar Competition Equality (Individualism) (Egalitarianism) Note:Adapted from Douglas 1970;1982. that what matters most to people is their constrained.The strength or weakness of relationships with other people and other group boundaries and the numerous or people's relationships with them.It few,varied or similar,prescriptions bind- follows that the major choice made by ing or freeing individuals are the com- people(or,if they are subject to coercion, ponents of their culture. made for them)is the form of culture- Strong groups with numerous prescrip- shared values legitimating social practices tions that vary with social roles combine -they adopt.An act is culturally ra- to form hierarchical collectivism.Strong tional,therefore,if it supports one's way groups whose members follow few pre- of life. scriptions form an egalitarian culture,a A basic proposition of this cultural shared life of voluntary consent without theory (which cannot be demonstrated coercion or inequality.Competitive in- here)is an impossibility theorem:there dividualism joins few prescriptions with are only a limited number of cultures that weak group boundaries,thereby encour- between them categorize most human aging ever new combinations.When relations.3 Though we can imagine an in- groups are weak and prescriptions strong finite number of potential cultures,only a -so that decisions are made for them by relatively small number (here I shall work people on the outside-the controlled with four)are filled with human activity; culture is fatalistic (See Figure 1). the rest are deserted.What makes order The social ideal of individualistic cul- possible is that only a few conjunctions of tures is self-regulation.They favor bid- shared values and their corresponding ding and bargaining in order to reduce the social relations are viable in that they are need for authority.They support equal socially livable. opportunity to compete in order to facili- The dimensions of cultural theory are tate arrangements between consenting based on answers to two questions:Who adults with a minimum of external inter- am I?and What shall I do?The question ference.They seek opportunity to be dif- of identity may be answered by saying ferent,not the chance to be the same,for that individuals belong to a strong group, diminishing social differences would a collective,that makes decisions binding require a central,redistributive authority. on all members or that their ties to others Hierarchy is institutionalized authority. are weak in that their choices bind only It justifies inequality on grounds that themselves.The question of action is specialization and division of labor enable answered by responding that the in- people to live together with greater har- dividual is subject to many or few pre- mony and effectiveness than do alterna- scriptions,a free spirit or a spirit tightly tive arrangements.Hence,hierarchies are 6
1987 Constructing Institutions rationalized by a sacrificial ethic:the the form and extent of manipulation vary. parts are supposed to sacrifice for the Apathetic cultures are manipulated;fatal- whole. ists live by rules others make and impose Committed to a life of purely voluntary upon them.Manipulation is built into association,those from egalitarian cul- hierarchies;orders come down and obedi- tures reject authority.They can live a life ence presumably flows up.The evocative without coercion or authority only by language of New Guinea anthropology greater equality of condition.Thus egali- (the "big men"versus the "rubbish men") tarians may be expected to prefer reduc- expresses the growth of manipulation in tion of differences-between races,or market cultures as some people cease to income levels,or men and women, possess the resources to regulate their own parents and children,teachers and stu- lives.Egalitarians try to manipulate the dents,authorities and citizens. other cultures by incessant criticism;they An apathetic culture arises when people coerce one another by attributing in- cannot control what happens to them. equalities to corruption and duplicity.s Because their boundaries are porous but To identify with,to become part of a the prescriptions imposed on them are culture,signifies exactly that:the un- severe,they develop fatalistic feelings: viable void of formlessness-where every- what will be,will be.There is no point in thing and therefore nothing is posible-is their having preferences on public policy replaced by social constraint.Even so, because what they prefer would not,in individuals keep testing the constraints, any event,matter. reinforcing them if they prove satisfactory But none of these modes of organizing in practice,modifying or rejecting them, social life is viable on its own.A com- when possible,if unsatisfactory.It is indi- petitive culture needs something-the viduals as social creatures,not only being laws of contract-to be above negotiat- molded by but actively molding their ing;hierarchies need something-anar- social context-shaping the maze as well chic individualists,authority-less egali- as running it-that are the focus of cul- tarians,apathetic fatalists-to sit on top tural theory. of;egalitarians need something-unfair Suppose a new development occurs. competition,inequitable hierarchy,non- Without knowing much about it,those participant fatalists-to criticize;fatalists who identify with each particular way of require an external source of control to life can guess whether its effect is to tell them what to do."What a wonderful increase or decrease social distinctions, place the world would be,"say the adher- impose,avoid,or reject authority- ents of each culture,"if only everyone guesses made more definitive by observ- were like us,"conveniently ignoring that ing what like-minded individuals do.Of it is only the presence in the world of peo- course,people may be,and often are, ple who are not like them that enables mistaken.To seek is not necessarily to them to be the way they are.Hence,cul- find a culturally rational course of action. tural theory may be distinguished by a Gramsci's would-be capitalists may try to necessity theorem:conflict among cul- establish hegemony over others,but they tures is a precondition of cultural identity. are often mistaken about which ideas and It is the differences and distances from actions will in fact support their way of others that define one's own cultural life.They may,for instance,use govern- identity. mental regulation to institute a pattern of Alone,no one has power over anyone. cumulative inequalities that convert Power is a social phenomenon;power, market arrangements into state capital- therefore,is constituted by culture.But ism,leading to their ultimate subordina-
American Political Science Review Vol.81 tion.To be culturally rational by bolster- people's political behavior.If these ing one's way of life is the intention,not criteria are incorrectly or insufficiently necessarily the accomplishment. specified,they will make people's If social life is the midwife of political opinions unrelated where another set of preferences,how do people get from cul- criteria would make them more consis- ture to preferences?Perhaps politics is too tent.When there is a question as to complicated to allow many people to whether it is the people who do not under- figure out what they prefer. stand what they are doing or we social scientists who do not understand the peo- "Preferences Need No ple,I am inclined to think that we have Inferences" fallen down.All of us in social science are looking for bedrock,for the most basic An obstacle to the development of a value and factual premises that we can theory of political preference formation is hypothesize as lying behind specific polit- the view,dominant in psychology until ical and policy preferences.My claim is recently,that cognition must precede that this foundation lies in social relation- affect.For if "preferences are formed and ships,roughly as categorized by political expressed only after and only as a result cultures. of considerable cognitive activity" foundation lies in social relationships, (Zajonc 1980,154),then it would indeed roughly as categorized by political be difficult to explain how most people, cultures. including many who engage only in How does the social filter enable people minimal cognitive activity,at least in who possess only inches of facts to gen- regard to politics,come to have so many erate miles of preferences?What is it preferences.If,however,one goes along about cultures that makes them the kind with Zajonc and the considerable litera- of theories that ordinary folk can use to ture he cites"that to arouse affect,objects figure out their preferences?The ability of need to be cognized very little-in fact people to know what they prefer without minimally"(p.154),more promising knowing much else lies at the crux of theoretical avenues open up.Preferences, understanding preference formation.Cul- Zajonc continues,"must be constituted of ture codes can be unlocked,I maintain, interactions between some gross object because its keys are social.By figuring out features and internal states of the indi- their master preferences,as it were-who vidual"(p.159).But how,we may ask, they are and are not,to what groups they do preferences get from object features to do and do not belong-they can readily internal states? figure out the rest.A basic reason people The cultural hypothesis is that indi- are able to develop so many preferences is viduals exert control over each other by that they actually do not have to work all institutionalizing the moral judgments that hard.A few positive and negative justifying their interpersonal relationships associations go a long way. so they can be acted upon and accounted It is no more necessary for a person to for.The prevailing view is that the inter- verbalize about culture than it is neces- relatedness among attitudes in the mass sary to know the rules of grammar in public is low,that is,people are inconsis- order to speak.The stock phrases "one of tent.Now,criteria of consistency express- us"versus "one of them"goes a long way. ing what ought to be related to what are Preferences might come from insight into not found in nature but,like the cate- general principles,but,because meanings gories of culture I am expounding,are have to be shared,ideologues and theo- imposed in an effort to make sense out of rists often discover that their views are 8
1987 Constructing Institutions rejected or modified by others.Prefer- Preferences may be rationalized from ences can and do come sideways,from the top down,specific applications being identifications,experiences,and conver- deduced from general principles.But sations.What matters is not how prefer- complexity of the causal chains invoked ences are first proposed (many are called leaves people who lack a capacity for but few are chosen)but how they are abstract thought unable to form prefer- ultimately disposed through the presence ences.Reasoning in steps is also slow. or absence of social validation.It is not Without social validation at each step, the lone individual,after all,who creates moreover-which is difficult to achieve- what is called ideological constraint ("one the chain of reasoning may snap.For- thing entailing another")among prefer- tunately,faster methods are available. ences but social interaction among adher- People can know what they believe or ents of a particular culture in contrast to whom they trust without knowing how other cultures whose identifiers have dif- the belief is derived.Sniderman,Hagen, ferent preferences Tetlock,and Brady (1986)agree that such bottom-up processes operate on white Heuristics attitudes toward blacks.In their view Brady and Sniderman,in pursuing a It may be nearer the mark to say that citizens,so closely related question,"How ..can far as their reasoning about policy is affect- citizens make sense of groups-that is, driven,start at the beginning of the chain,taking know which is relevant to which issue and account of their feelings toward blacks.Then, rather than working their way along the chain which stands for what-without having hierarchically,from general to specific,they skip to know a great deal about them?"(1985, over the intermediate links of the chain and go 1073), straight to its end.Having reached the end of the chain,they work their way backwards and fill in focus on the operation of an affective calculus, the missing links.That is to say,not only do they or,as we call it,a likability heuristic.This reason forwards,from general to.specific;they calculus is organized around people's feelings also reason backwards,from specific to general toward groups such as liberals and conserva- And,because they can reason both forwards and tives.Clearly,many in the mass public lack a backwards,with affect guiding them,they can firm understanding of political abstractions.All indeed figure out what they think about ques. the same,many know whom they like,and, tions,such as the reasons for racial inequality, equally important,they also know whom they they may not ordinarily think about.(p.33) dislike.If coherent,these likes and dislikes can supply people with an affective calculus to figure Mediating their perceptions through their out the issue positions of strategic groups.We cultures,people can grab on to any social suggest that in this way many in the mass public handle to choose their preferences.All can figure out who wants what politically with- they need are aids to calculation. out necessarily knowing a lot about politics.(pp. "How,"Paul Sniderman and his col- 1061-62) leagues ask,"do people figure out what The more people are able to choose sides they think about political issues,given -ours versus theirs-"the more they ap- how little they commonly know about preciate the differences between the issue them?"(Sniderman et al.1986,2).They positions of the two sides.What counts, state that "three heuristics are of par- then,is not how people feel toward ticular importance:affect (likes and dis- groups,one by one;rather it is how they likes);ideology (liberalism/conservatism); feel toward pairs of opposing groups"(p. and attributions of responsibility (the so- 1075).It is precisely this pairing or,more called desert heuristic)"(p.2).The desert accurately,this triangulation of rival heuristic is a version of system versus in- cultures,I believe,that enables people to dividual blame through which adherents position themselves in political life. of political cultures seek to hold others 9
American Political Science Review Vol.81 accountable for their behaviors."Liberal" party identification and economic class, versus "conservative"stands as a surro- organize perception.How are the schemas gate for equality of condition versus that form our preferences formed? equality of opportunity,that is,for the Although the logic of schemas may rivalry of egalitarian and market cultures. appear similar to that of cultural theory- (When "liberal"meant "laissez-faire,"its a small number of premises generating a cultural associations were different.)The large number of premises-this appear- two heuristics-desert and ideology-are ance is misleading.Cultures are not dis- related:market forces blame individuals embodied ideas;they are not merely cog- (they are undeserving);egalitarians blame nitive.?The mental activity has a pur- the system(it is oppressive).Liberals dis- pose:the justification of desired social like conservatives because they "blame practices.It is both together,shared the victims,"while conservatives dislike values indissolubly connected to social liberals because they encourage irrespon- practices,that make up cultural theory. sible behavior.All these aids to calcula- Comparing cultures means just that- tion are ideological (or,to use the anthro- comparing cultures as totalities with pological term,cosmological)in the sense values and practices joined,not isolated. of rationalizations for preferred social The concept of schemas,essentially a relationships. reinvention of our old friend "attitudes" I agree entirely that under a new name (like "political be- havior"for "political science"),falls prey it would be...a mistake merely to enumerate various heuristics;a mistake partly because they to the same disability-the endless pro- are likely to proliferate endlessly;a mistake more liferation of explanatory constructs until fundamentally because it is necessary to under- there is an attitude or a schema for every stand how these aids to judgment are themselves act.I think that the notion of schemas interrelated.It is,that is to say,necessary,to understand how people work their way,step by lacks a crucial element that cultural step,through a chain of reasoning.And to theory offers:a systematic context from understand how they manage this,one must which preferences can flow.Let us try a establish what they do first,then second,then couple of quick tests. third.(Sniderman et al.1986,47) Cultural theory attempts to unify heuris- Two Tests of Cultural Theory: tics by suggesting that these chains have Ideology and Risk but one link:the internalization of exter- nal social relations. Cultural theory is open to tests normal- ly applied in social science:retrodiction Schemas (Can it explain historical puzzles?[Ellis and Wildavsky 1986])and prediction Another entry for understanding the (Does it account for future events better formation of political preferences has now than do other theories?).The degree of appeared-schema theory.According to incorporation into group life and the Pamela Conover and Stanley Feldman degree of prescription can be measured so (1984),this theory views "people as 'cog- as to arrive at (forgive the cumbrous nitive misers'who have a limited capacity expression)intersubjective coder reliabil- for dealing with information,and thus ity.Jonathan Gross and Steve Rayner's must use cues and previously stored book,Measuring Culture,does just that. knowledge to reach judgments and deci- One test of cultural theory is con- sions as accurately and efficiently as ceptual-historical;I contend that the cul- possible"(p.96).Political cognition is tural categories described here fit far about how different schemas,such as better in accounting for political prefer- 10
1987 Constructing Institutions ences than the usual left-right,liberal- of dichotomous instead of triangular conservative dimensions.A second test is designations of political cultures.The both contemporary and future-oriented;I most infamous of these is left versus right. claim that perception of danger and dis- Left,or liberal,presumably designates a position toward risk-from technology tendency toward greater use of central and from acquired immune deficiency government for policy purposes,includ- syndrome-are better explained and pre- ing an inclination to welfare state dicted by cultural theory than by compet- measures designed to be at least some- ing theories. what redistributive.Presumably,right,or conservative,signifies a disposition against central governmental intervention in the economy but of greater respect for A Confusion of Cultures: collective authority.As political short- Competitive Individualism versus hand,these terms have their uses.But for Egalitarian Collectivism purposes of political analysis,they obfus- cate more than they clarify.The prefer- The single worst misunderstanding ence for greater use of government may about U.S.politics,in my opinion,is the stem from a hierarchical culture in which joining together as a single entity,called the individual is subordinated to the "individualism,"two separate and distinct group.Yet the very same preference for political cultures with opposing prefer- central governmental action may be ences for policies and institutions-com- rooted in a desire to reduce all social dis- petitive individualism and egalitarian col- tinction,including those on which hierar- lectivism.Between equality of oppor- chies are based.Hierarchies and egali- tunity (enabling individuals to accentuate tarian collectives may,in certain his- their differences)and equality of results torical contexts,ally themselves in favor (enabling them to diminish their differ- of redistributive measures,yet they ences),there is a vast gulf.To say that may also,at the same time,be bitter equal opportunity is empty without more opponents in regard to respect for author- equal results is to say that the latter is ity.For equalization of statuses would more important than the former. destroy hierarchy.It is not easy,as the Individualistic cultures prefer minimum Catholic Church is learning,to say that authority,just enough to maintain rules all forms of inequality are bad but that for transactions,but they do not reject all popes and bishops are good (Wildavsky authority;if it leaves them alone,they 1985a). will leave it alone.While egalitarians also The left-right distinction is beset with like to live a life of minimal prescription, contradictions.Hierarchical cultures they are part and parcel of collectives in favor social conservatism,giving govern- which,so long as they remain members, ment the right to intervene in matters of individuals are bound by group decisions. personal morality.Thus egalitarians may This critical distinction in group- support intervention in the economy to boundedness,the freedom to transact for reduce economic differences but not inter- yourself with any consenting adult vis-a- vention in social life to maintain inequal- vis the requirement of agreement with ity.Libertarians,who are competitive group decisions,makes for a radical dif- individualists,oppose both social and ference in the formation of political economic intervention. preferences. A division of the world into left and The confusion to which I am objecting right that is equally inapplicable to the manifests itself more generally in the use past and to the present deserves to be dis- 11
