The recent tariffs imposed by Donald Trump have ignited a spirited debate among economists and laypeople alike: Are tariffs beneficial? Perhaps some of them? Should governments selectively impose only the “good” tariffs? While these discussions can be engaging, they also prompt a larger, more philosophical question: What is the true role of economists in society?
The title of this post is a nod to Buchanan’s influential paper. Yet, while Buchanan’s work is noteworthy, my focus shifts to another profound insight of his. To illustrate this, I will share a fascinating anecdote from Richard E. Wagner, one of his former students:
On an exhilarating first day in class, I noticed Buchanan scanning the roll sheet. He appeared to be searching for someone special, then abruptly called out: “Mr. Wagner, what’s wrong with the American tax system?” I felt a surge of excitement.
After a summer of intense reading, I believed I had the answer ready. I confidently began to outline my views on simplifying the tax code by minimizing exemptions and deductions. Buchanan listened intently, which was incredibly gratifying. However, when I finished, he replied: “Mr. Wagner, you shouldn’t be answering that question. We are democrats here, not autocrats.”
Buchanan’s response encapsulates a fundamental tenet of his philosophy: economists are not equipped to dictate what people should desire or to assess what is beneficial for them. In his work, particularly in The Limits of Liberty, he emphasizes that there is no absolute “truth” in political discourse. If one accepts Buchanan’s view and dismisses the notion of a singular truth in politics, it logically follows that, as he states, “we cannot play God, nor can we pretend that our private preferences embody his ‘truth.’”
Ultimately, the power to decide what is “good” resides with the people themselves. Each individual is the best judge of their own desires and needs. As Buchanan eloquently asserts, a situation is deemed “good” if it empowers individuals to achieve their goals, constrained only by the principle of mutual agreement. Thus, it is not the prerogative of economists—or political philosophers, for that matter—to impose their views of goodness upon others.
So, what is the rightful place for economists in this grand scheme? They hold a crucial role: to analyze the implications of various actions and provide recommendations based on the desires of the populace. Their focus should be on prudence, offering citizens sound advice on the most effective means to realize their ends—consistent with the goal of a value-free approach to science.
However, it is important to clarify that this does not preclude economists from critiquing government actions. Indeed, it is often their responsibility to do so. Yet, in these critiques, they must explicitly adopt the perspective of the citizens rather than evaluating governmental actions in a vacuum. Economists can challenge government decisions when they exceed the unanimous consent of the populace. To reiterate, this is not about imposing their own preferences or “truths,” but rather advocating for the supremacy of individual sovereignty. Economists should embody the spirit of democracy, not autocracy.
Max Molden is a PhD student at the University of Hamburg. He has collaborated with European Students for Liberty and Prometheus – Das Freiheitsinstitut. His insights regularly appear in Der Freydenker.
