The Importance of Independence III: Market Vulnerability

I have conceded that there may be situations in which A and B have a duty to do x with or without consent, but this observation does not necessarily imply that giving a democratic majority the power to force individuals to do things is the best method to ensure that duties are done under just conditions. There is an important second-best reason to protect personal independence even if active duties exist. Mandatory participation is vulnerable to abuse and error, which are likely to produce unjust outcomes, because people are fallible, and no one has privileged knowledge of abstract morality. For the social project to be just, its goals, methods, and terms have to be just. Even if we completely disregard the possibility that participants’ agreement has a direct bearing on whether the social project is just, the requirement to obtain each participant’s agreement is an extremely powerful tool to ensure that the goals, methods, and terms of cooperation are good, fair, right, or just and not one-sided in favor of the ruling majority, property owners, or any other powerful group. Section A argues that the power to say no is useful to protect the vulnerable in a market economy. Section B argues that, to some extent, other social safeguards such as labor regulation, are deficient without it. Section C argues that independence is also a powerful tool in protecting individuals in their non-market interactions.