3 ms·
> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial. If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with yo
by kiruwa 10y ago
> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial.
If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.
We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.
The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.
----
I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.
* How much taxation is "fair"
* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"
- dragonwriter 10y ago> But I'm talking about the decision-making process. So am I. The decision making process that goes into "social/political" things is pretty much economic. > We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. Social/political decision making is aggregating individual efforts to maximize the world's alignment with each individual's own preferences. There's no difference between this and economic decision making. > It's a moral question. "Morality" is just one subset of personal preferences against which people act to optimize. The distinction between it and other subsets of preferences (like "aesthetics", etc.) is arbitrary.