Deal? Deal.

Deal? Deal.

Gautham Antarvedi 

TY B.Sc. (2022-2025)

Estimated Reading time: 5 minutes

Source

Resting on the rhetoric of meritocracy has proven time and again to be liberalism’s achilles’ heel. Arguments about the equality of opportunity over equality of outcome never prove to be as persuasive as solidarity against injustice. Invoking an “us” is singularly powerful in rallying the injured and the deprived. Equality of opportunity is a wonderful sentiment and piercing argument against the opponents of liberalism and against their perception of it,  however, liberalism is not about drawing a starting line behind which the athletes get ready. The athletes are diverse as can be; a cripple, usain bolt, three-legged potato sack racers and a couch potato like me. I do not wish to extend the metaphor for the heck of it, but I am pointing out the reality. Ensuring equality of opportunity is equally as ridiculous as equality of outcome. No two persons are the same, nor do they want the same thing. The intuition of a baseline of human welfare is a valuable idea, but it does not ensure a just outcome. There is no guarantee the runner won’t just fall backwards. This is not to say that there is no merit to the concept. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are cardinal directions in the journey to find justice. Just as meritocracy and efficiency proves to be unfair because of the outcome, equality of opportunity proves to be unreliable in its promise of justice. Outcomes have to be accounted for. 

Economists have all the theory about the outcomes of liberalism. One must just look to the holy grail to find the right language; the general equilibrium. Perhaps the fundamental tenet of economics; general equilibrium outlines what I believe liberalism to be all about: Negotiation. Consider all the assumptions associated with the textbook description. Individuals negotiate and individuals are better off. Negotiation includes due consideration of opportunity and outcome. Instead of fantastical promises of equality, this holds the only truth of improvement. Employing negotiation as the fundamental rhetoric of liberalism respects the necessary truths about economics — demand and supply, money and prices — as representations of scarcity and the good faith necessary for economic exchange. The simple fact of life is that everything is a trade off. You cannot gain something without losing something. By definition, negotiation allows one to gain more than they’ve lost. 

Negotiation is delicate. Whatever the interaction between two humans, people usually lose more than they gain. Economic exchange reduces this possibility and still allows it to be fair when this happens. Since we cannot predict the future, loss is inevitable. But between two people, the negotiation can lead to gain; provided there is no coercion under the threat of violence and no exploitation due to asymmetry of information. Under the threat of violence, it is obvious how one can be coerced into loss. Information is a little more complex. When is a capitalist an entrepreneur and when is a capitalist a “capitalist” ? The line is discovery, taking a chance on the future. They might walk away better off for the negotiation but that doesn’t mean they’ve exploited you. They’ve exploited you when they’ve kept you from information that everyone else knows. Not being paid a fair price because you don’t know what the fair price is, that is when you’ve been taken advantage of. 

The two preconditions for negotiation; disallowing violence and information symmetry, have allowed economic exchange to flourish. By monopolizing violence within the state, we have prevented violence and through the price mechanism, we have reduced asymmetry of information. These successes of liberalism do not make it invulnerable to arguments against it but the rhetoric needs to shift to an emphasis on negotiation. Both arguments for and against liberalism are more accurately represented through negotiation. The improvement of welfare and the preconditions for successful negotiation explicate the argument for liberalism. However, the fact is that these preconditions have not been met historically, therefore, one cannot say that the outcome today is just, just that today on, it will be. Furthermore, prices act as an aid for valuation in negotiation. But they may become definite in the lack of alternative choices. For a desperate person, a price has to be accepted no matter how low it is. It almost seems violent. 

Investigation of these phenomena requires an actual study into economics, but it does not take away from the analytical superiority of negotiation as a premise. Efficiency, meritocracy, equality and equity are powerful concepts but fail to accurately represent the mechanism of economic exchange. Negotiation displays the mechanism, the implicit preconditions and the success and failures possible, allowing one to be an economist as opposed to a politician.