(Click here to continue on the main path)

All that utilitarian rhetoric about maximizing welfare sounds great. But I want to make two points about utilitarianism as a practical political guide.

First of all, in principle there are virtually no limits on how much interference with property rights (and other rights) utilitarianism can be used to justify. As circumstances change, anything might be justified. And it will be.

Secondly, in practice, in the United States, the utilitarian justification for interference with property rights has shifted from "We are justified in interfering in such-in-such a way because doing so maximizes welfare" to "We are justified in interfering in such-in-such a way because it increases overall welfare" to "We are justified in interfering in such-in-such a way because it does some good for someone."

There is an enormous difference between these three justifications. We have in fact gone down a utilitarian slippery slope and reach a point at which there is no serious limit on what the federal government can do with property except for the limits imposed by politics.