3 ms·

Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For ex

Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such a policy will deliver positive, scientifically-observable results for society-at-large, but (as far as I'm concerned) such a policy isn't moral in the first place and therefore shouldn't be adopted. Maybe targeting only scientific validity in politics is a very misleading oversimplification.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Let's not go into healthcare itself. But I think you've touched on another important matter that I tried to introduce elsewhere, but hasn't been caught up yet. I think that we must be careful to keep science and policy separated. Even if we are to grant that a certain point of science is correct, it does not necessarily lead to acceptance of a point of policy. For example, it is well known that at the margin, minimum wage laws increase unemployment amongst the least skilled workers. But it doesn't automatically follow that such a policy should not be followed; perhaps with a proper safety net, those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves. Likewise (and even more controversially), even if climate change is as serious as some claim, it does not necessarily follow that all efforts must be pursued: it may be that the cost of fixing it exceeds the cost of the expected damage. It's just too easy to say "we have this problem, thus we must do something". The values that drive our actions are different from the science that allows us to understand the world.
- jobeirne 16y ago
  The problem here is that you're arguing as a consequentialist: maybe ``those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves'', but that's a big if. I'm not concerned with what may happen if a policy is introduced: I'm concerned with the intrinsic morality of the policy itself; anything beyond that is crystal-gazing. The only sure consequence of imposing a minimum-wage law is that private businesses are restricted in the wages that they can offer potential employees. Is it moral that the government will arrest me if I hire a 16-year-old to run errands for me at five dollars an hour? I don't think so.
ramanujan 16y ago
I think you're conceding too much ground. You need only look at Hong Kong vs. mainland China (pre-Deng) to empirically see the difference between massive government spending and laissez faire in sharp relief. Same with North Korea vs South Korea, or East vs West Germany, or pre/post reform India. In other words, you need not invoke morality to demonstrate that a large government sector represses growth.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Considering this discussion has already careered into the realm of hot-button issues ... ... we could add that any vote against foreign aid would require congressmen to watch videos of Africans dying of starvation, any vote for defense spending should require pictures of foreigners dying horribly and any vote again it should require the viewing of a live re-enactment of the burning of Washington, any vote against cell research would require the direct viewing of people suffering from exotic, disgusting diseases, anything offending the catholics should require a harangue describing the multiple tortures involves in Hell and so-forth... I flagged this topic but, like Dogbert said "I can dish this out all day.."
AmyRyan 16y ago
Ah morality. Complex topic. I've got an example for you: should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his attendance at university? And even if such a gunpoint demand is allowed, I'm curious what you would say about the morality of an unapalogetic libertarian that attends university with just such a subsidy.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Let's not go into healthcare itself. But I think you've touched on another important matter that I tried to introduce elsewhere, but hasn't been caught up yet. I think that we must be careful to keep science and policy separated. Even if we are to grant that a certain point of science is correct, it does not necessarily lead to acceptance of a point of policy. For example, it is well known that at the margin, minimum wage laws increase unemployment amongst the least skilled workers. But it doesn't automatically follow that such a policy should not be followed; perhaps with a proper safety net, those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves. Likewise (and even more controversially), even if climate change is as serious as some claim, it does not necessarily follow that all efforts must be pursued: it may be that the cost of fixing it exceeds the cost of the expected damage. It's just too easy to say "we have this problem, thus we must do something". The values that drive our actions are different from the science that allows us to understand the world.

jobeirne 16y ago
The problem here is that you're arguing as a consequentialist: maybe ``those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves'', but that's a big if. I'm not concerned with what may happen if a policy is introduced: I'm concerned with the intrinsic morality of the policy itself; anything beyond that is crystal-gazing. The only sure consequence of imposing a minimum-wage law is that private businesses are restricted in the wages that they can offer potential employees. Is it moral that the government will arrest me if I hire a 16-year-old to run errands for me at five dollars an hour? I don't think so.

ramanujan 16y ago

I think you're conceding too much ground. You need only look at Hong Kong vs. mainland China (pre-Deng) to empirically see the difference between massive government spending and laissez faire in sharp relief. Same with North Korea vs South Korea, or East vs West Germany, or pre/post reform India. In other words, you need not invoke morality to demonstrate that a large government sector represses growth.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Considering this discussion has already careered into the realm of hot-button issues ... ... we could add that any vote against foreign aid would require congressmen to watch videos of Africans dying of starvation, any vote for defense spending should require pictures of foreigners dying horribly and any vote again it should require the viewing of a live re-enactment of the burning of Washington, any vote against cell research would require the direct viewing of people suffering from exotic, disgusting diseases, anything offending the catholics should require a harangue describing the multiple tortures involves in Hell and so-forth... I flagged this topic but, like Dogbert said "I can dish this out all day.."

AmyRyan 16y ago

Ah morality. Complex topic. I've got an example for you: should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his attendance at university? And even if such a gunpoint demand is allowed, I'm curious what you would say about the morality of an unapalogetic libertarian that attends university with just such a subsidy.