ABSTRACT
The Pareto principle is generally considered to be the gold standard for policy analysis. Pareto principle has no deep connection with individual autonomy or freedom. In terms of autonomy, Sen's paradox is not just a clever parlor trick, but the symptom of a profound gap between the Pareto principle and libertarianism. The libertarian believes that people should get what they choose for themselves; the Pareto believes that people should get what they would have chosen under the most plausible interpretation, this means what they should have chosen to advance their own welfare rather than what they would actually have chosen. Professors Kaplow and Shavell extend Sen's result to argue that Pareto is inconsistent with any nonwelfarist moral values such as fairness. The Paretian limits herself to the easiest cases for applying utilitarianism, those where the only utility changes are positive. Thus, the Pareto principle is likely to remain a useful tool.
