Introduction

An attempt to plan people’s economic activities centrally can utilize only a fraction of the knowledge that individuals themselves possess, from which it follows that centralized attempts will be less likely to succeed than allowing decentralized decision making. The error we often make is overestimating what we do or can know. This error manifests itself in numerous ways. How often, for example, do we assume that our own schedule of value is not only correct for us but should be adopted by others as well? That others should value, and sacrifice scarce resources for, what we value and to the same extent that we value it? That they should be willing to make the same tradeoffs, tolerate only the same risks, and associate with only the same people as we would, and under only those arrangements that we ourselves would accept? Much political philosophy includes criticism of others’ judgments and values for their failure to comport with the critics’ judgments and values. If the Local Knowledge Argument, as well as the Great Mind Fallacy, holds, however, then such criticism rests on a weaker foundation than is often supposed.

Individual Value

Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky idealize a society characterized by the “sculptor engrossed in cutting marble, the teacher intent on imparting a difficult idea, the musician struggling with a score, a scientist exploring the mysteries of space and time” (2012: 9). Karl Marx, for his part, imagines a society in which