Law, Social Utility and Demonstrated Preference

Abstract

Rozeff (2020) engages in fallacious argumentation based on the fallacy of interpersonal comparisons of utility, as well as that of composition and constancy. The present essay is an attempt to demonstrate that interpersonal comparisons of utility (ICUs) are indeed fallacious and that demonstrated preference, applied to society, is an empty concept and ineffective as a means to prove diminished social welfare following an act of aggression. This is due to the fact that it is in contradiction with methodological individualism. Moreover, we extend this framework to include any kind of state-made legislation. We show how it is not possible to link ICUs to any kind of demonstrated preference, as it is based on dubious social contract theory. It is guilty of an assumption of constancy, unlike a pure market-based determination of principles and procedures of law and conflict resolution, which depend on constant affirmation and renewal.