A few says about Posner

This is one of the articles that totally surprises my understanding of the view of the world. I find many parts of chapter 3 hard to accept, but chapter 4 makes a lot more sense to me. Before start commenting, I would love to ask why, at bottom page 95, “the sum of the liability and accident insurance premiums will be lower under negligence?”

First Critique:

Posner stresses the quantifiablity of wealth-maximization theory at the beginning when he compares wealth maximization theory and utilitarianism. Even though wealth-maximization theory is a more quantifiable theory than that of utilitarianism, it cannot measure everything. Posner believes that implicit market is able to measure how much a marriage is, and how much love is. I certainly doubt so because emotion-involved services or trades are not typically fully rational or self-interest. People who enjoy a game of bridge also enjoy playing bridge with this particular partner. Otherwise, a game of bridge is no different from a game of chess or anything else. I am this kind of person. Then how can I say what the value of me playing bridge with my best partner is? Moreover, emotion-involved products or services are highly volatile. For example, suppose a girl is having dinner with his boyfriend. A typical dinner with boyfriend is valued around 100 dollars. Suddenly, the guy proposes to the girl. Then, to this girl, this dinner suddenly values significantly higher because this is the one and the only dinner (hopefully). So even though wealth maximization theory seems to offer a better capability of quantification, it certainly cannot monetize emotionally involved products or services, which are very important part of daily life.

Second Critique:

The definition of value is not consistent to me. In the house selling example, on page 64-5, seller values the house based on how much s/he thinks it worth, but the buyer values the house based on how much money s/he has. For seller, the price is subjective. But for buyer, the price is subject to reality, and therefore, must be objective. I find this inconsistency a flaw to the quantification of wealth.

Third Critique:

On page 80-1, Posner lists two criteria when redistribution could be justified. The second reason, to me however, is justifiable in utilitarian sense but not wealth maximization sense because the fact that the alleviation of poverty will benefit a nongiver is not consistent with his previous claim that alleviation of poverty does not increase total wealth, but is consistent with the idea that total utility will increase given a better social milieu.

One Interesting Idea:

Posner’s idea of monetizing all human activities may find a solution for women trafficking for prostitution in South East Asia and many other places. “In a system of wealth maximization [utility monster’s] activities are circumscribed by the limitations of his wealth, and his victims are protected by the rights system, which forces the monster to pay them whatever compensation they demand.” To think further from Posner’s idea, legalizing prostitution could solve the problem of women trafficking. Poor women would trade their body for subsistence; at the same time, their basic rights are protected through legalization. In that sense, labeling and monetization could be an alternative practical method to delve with many ethically debatable questions.