What makes a good life? Who gets to decide what constitutes wellbeing? The evening of November 12th, Professor Jeff Miron and Associate Professor Adaner Usmani shared their thoughts on preference satisfaction and welfare economics before a riveted audience of students and faculty. Miron, who has advocated for libertarian policies such as legalizing all drugs, and Usmani, who studies mass incarceration and inequality, agreed on the importance of promoting freedom, but diverged on how best to do so. Their hour-long discussion covered issues as diverse as wealth redistribution, addictive substances, and criminal justice reform. Some in the room believed that true freedom requires the right to define freedom oneself. Others felt that freedom should not necessitate the satisfaction of one’s unrestricted preferences. However, there seemed to be a consensus that second-order desires should be honored above first-order desires— that is, what one wants to want is more important than an immediate desire.

Many of the theoretical debates were difficult to settle without empirical evidence. For example, does drug prohibition protect vulnerable individuals from their self-destructive impulses or generate corruption and unsafe consumption? Both professors felt that the absence of poverty is a public good. To what extent, then, is redistribution a productive and efficient endeavor? Lively discussions among audience members continued well after the conversation between Miron and Usmani ended, doubtlessly fueling dining hall debates for weeks to come.