True False Consciousness; D. Boudreaux

"Workers are falsely conscious," intoned the law professor. "Their participation in capital ist institutions and their refusal to revolt against them reflect only the awesome power of capitalism to deceive its victims." Good heavens! Not only does capitalism oppress the body and soul, it oppresses the mind as well-so much so that its cruelly abused victims remain oblivious to the injus tices visited upon them. The Economist's Reaction My initial response to hearing allegations of false consciousness is to dismiss the conDonald J. Boudreaux is president ofFEE. 4 cept out of hand. People, as economists inele gantly say, are rational. They're not so stupid as to be oblivious to being abused. But the more I reflect on the matter, the more I realize that false consciousness is real. Contrary to statist claims, however,false con sciousness arises only in politics and not in the private sector.

When are you most likely to be adequately informed to make choices? When are you most likely to put forth the mental effort nec essary to weigh all available information and then exercise the discipline required to make decisions that are best over the long haul? It's when you have a significant personal stake in the outcome and when your decision matters. One of the great benefits of the rules of private-property rights and freedom of con tract is that they oblige each decisionmaker to bear the bulk of the costs-and permit each decisionmaker to enjoy the bulk of the bene fits-of each of his decisions. Also, by con centrating decisionmaking power in individ uals rather than dispersing it among collec tives, private property gives each individual genuine influence over the outcome of events. Private-property rights promote true, not false, consciousness. Consider, for example, a woman who vol untarily puts aside a professional career in favor of staying home to raise her children.

Many leftists explain this decision as evi dence of false consciousness-as evidence that the woman is hoodwinked by the capital ist patriarchy into thinking that raising chil dren is at least as worthy as pursing a career outside the home. Nonsense. The stay-at-home mom makes her choice very carefully.After all, the woman herself bears a large portion of the benefits and costs of the decision, and her decision is decisive: it alone determines what she will do. If she chooses to pursue a career, she pursues a career; if, instead, she chooses to become a homemaker, she becomes a homemaker. These two features-bearing personal conse quences and exercising a decisive ability to choose which alternative to pursue-mean that the choice made by any woman in such a situation should be presumed to be the prod uct of rational thought and of a mind cleared of distortions. Likewise for the other decisions that sta tists assert to be distorted by false conscious ness: people's decisions to shop at Wal-Mart, workers' decisions to take jobs at nonunion ized firms, consumers' decisions to smoke cigarettes, and women's decisions to be surrogate mothers. Each such decision has direct consequences for each decisionmaker, and each such decision is firmly in the hands . of the person who makes it-no one else can lawfully veto it. No other set of circum stances is as likely to prompt humans to be rational, competent, and clear-headed deci sion-makers.

Political False Consciousness Compare the private decisions that statists so distrust to those decisions that statists applaud, namely, political decisions. Unlike private decisions, people make political deci sions with no incentive to choose wisely. While private decisions are individualized (that is, no person must share decision making authority), political decisions typical ly are made collectively, with no individual 5 exercising decisive influence. For example and most notoriously-no voter determines the outcome of an election. Therefore, unlike in private settings, Jones can vote for A and get. B instead. This is so regardless of how passionately Jones desires A. Knowing that his vote will not swing the election, why should Jones bother to become adequately informed about the relevant issues? In addition, and again unlike in private set tings, voters (and legislators and bureaucrats) are permitted to help determine how other people will lead their lives. When the issue in an election is, say, whether or not Sunday alcohol sales should be allowed, each voter is given the opportunity to push the government to override the private decisions of individu als, each of whom knows best whether buying alcohol on Sunday is best for him or her.

False consciousness, then, indeed is real. But it afflictspeople as voters rather than peo ple as private decision-makers. Only in voting booths are people prone to act consistently contrary to their true interests. Again, if the outcome of an election is unaffected by how you vote-and if the bulk of the consequences of electoral outcomes fall on people other than you-you gain nothing by casting an informed and prudent ballot. Your vote, like everyone else's, will be uninformed and ill considered. Statists have it backwards. Capitalism doesn't foster false consciousness; politics does. The political process encourages igno rant and imprudent decisions that often run counter to the best interests of the very voters who cast their ballots in support of such deci sions. One of the many splendid benefits of private property and free markets is that these institutions give each person an unambiguous incentive to make wise decisions-that is, not to suffer false consciousness. D Markets Need a Hidden Fist?