I would definitely suggest having a look at what I put down as an economists way of looking at things. Without going through all the philosophy links the quickest way to do this is to look at the new readers section:

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/for-new-readers/

There are a number of points in those posts. However, the main point is that economists use the utilitarian framework to define issues and discover trade-offs – not to make conclusions about what policies are right.

If I make a conclusion I am stepping out of my strict economist boots and apply value judgments to my utilitarian framework. This is the important thing here – utilitarianism provides an awesome way of framing an issue, but it isn’t until you provide your own value judgments that you can reach policy conclusions.

Now it seems our value judgments differ, which is perfectly fine. But no amount of commenting on this blog post is going to change these respective value judgments methinks 😉

Ohhh grow up Mark, you live in a mild free market(ish) social democracy. If you want to live without government try Somalia.

This is getting interesting.

So as an economist you see your job informed, your framework for analysis, on that most dangerous moral relativism, utilitarianism.

Definition of same: ‘Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people… Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”‘

Great to see you up to your neck in the messy business of morality, though it’s a pretty dangerous matter to apply a lethal pragmatism to your morality as utlitarianism does.

For a start it’s a tyranny of the moral majority, and on top of that you must have some pretty squeamish notions about how to define ‘happiness’. I wonder when you’re determining the optimal level of government involvement in an economy and the lives of individuals in it, how you manage to relate this to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

If I don’t agree with the morality of the majority, then your analysis is part of the immoral process enslaving me to the ‘happiness’ of that majority, for you are giving Nanny State the justification of my slavery to her, and them: yes?

Burrowing down to the next level. Twenty years ago the private sector was larger than the State sector, so your analysis would have considered the happiness of that sector as the majority, I assume. After nine years of Aunty Helen and Uncle Michael, and no guts yet from Key to break the cycle of a bigger and bigger State, we now have basically one person working in the private sector having to pay for the life of one state sector worker or beneficiary. With the loss of private sector jobs through the recession, yet only what, perhaps 200 voluntary redundancies across the entire State sector, indeed, with hiring in Treasury, the State sector payroll having probably grown in real terms as well as proportionatly, it may well mean the group of people living on the State tit is now the largest group on our slave society. Thus does your analysis change to implement outcomes that are now ‘optimal’ to the happiness of this greater group? That would be the utlitiarian approach, yes? Because your other problem must be that ‘happiness’ is relative. Ms 16 Year Old DPB Mum’s happiness is served by Nanny State taking my efforts and giving it to her, yet this is conversely the source of my madness, and a utilitarian approach doesn’t take into account my happiness, only that of the ‘greatest number’.

Again, with no philosophical framework putting the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness’, that is an individual’s freedom to live as they like, unhindered and unbound by an over-regulating, over-legislating State, necessitating a morality of man qua man, and all this as the foremost urge driving a civilised society, it is surely impossible for you to navigate this moral minefield you are surely stuck in? Showing why one of the curses of the modern age is moral relativism, of which you are an instrument?

Just to quickly nudge a few points that are contentious 😛

“Democracy v. totalitarian governments of all hues.

My point proven irrefutably.”

Except you said that less government always leads to better outcomes, and always leads to more freedom. Comparing dictatorships to democracies does not prove this for the spectrum of limited governesses

“There is no philosophical responsibility in this? If you were to place ‘freedom’ under benefits, then you would be moving toward laissez-faire and away from mixed and controlled economies and thus peoples: how can you do any type of analysis without a philosophical framework?”

Economists are predominantly utilitarians. If you search for utilitarianism on the blog, or look under the “philosophy” or “methodology” tags you’ll find heaps of stuff we’ve written about it.

As I have said, we believe that individuals should be able to make choices and make the best choices. However, groups of individuals can constrain each others ability – and the evolution of a government can be seen as a solution to that. One big example of this is of course, externalities.

The size and level of government should be an issue for debate of course. But it is a subjective issue of value, and as a result there will always be debate that cannot be resolved.

“My car is packed, the road beakons.”

Ciao

We now need to move beyond democracy …

The contention was ‘The freer a people from their government, the better the society that has existed’:

Examples:

South Korea v. North Korea
USA/Australia/Uk/’West’ v. USSR
USA/Australia/Uk/’West’ v. China

I could go on for as many countries have existed. In summary:

Democracy v. totalitarian governments of all hues.

My point proven irrefutably.

… and as an economist my sole goal is to discuss the costs and benefits to inform society

There is no philosophical responsibility in this? If you were to place ‘freedom’ under benefits, then you would be moving toward laissez-faire and away from mixed and controlled economies and thus peoples: how can you do any type of analysis without a philosophical framework?

Your ‘freer-market’s post linked above is moving along these lines, but it is not freedom for freedoms sake, mans most precious quest throughout time, it is just pragmatism, and I get the feeling if you thought totalitarianism was more efficient you’d advocate that, and again for the choir, you do impose a benign government in your solutions, because you keep wanting government as the principle lever to ‘fix’ most ills, whereas a philosophical framework holding freedom as the principle would be keeping government out of our lives.

With no philosophical framework you risk being, at worst, nothing more useful for me than being able to analyse the cheapest shovel to dig my own grave with, or have some totalitarian dig it for me. At best, you risk ending up advocating a hotch potch of contradictory policies, like Bernard Hickey does, with no systems approach for guidance, because no guiding position as to how to live a life: and surely, economics is about only that – how we are to live our lives.

I mean no disrespect

None taken.

It is neither the point of the post, or an area where I think I can add value.

With no philosophical framework, instead the worst sort of pragmatism, you ain’t adding no value to my life anyway, because you keep shoving Nanny State right squarely in my face.

No disrespect intended 🙂

My car is packed, the road beakons.

😛

I was merely making the point that an arbitrary wage cut on a working group we tend to feel more sympathy for would not be taken as well. Change the 50% to 10% if you like 😉

Full quote:

“Government must be viewed in the same lens as other institutions, that way its differences can be more fully appreciated.”

So we need to look at how government functions in an institutional framework so we can understand exactly what ways government fail, and in what situations there are issues.

Missing the second half of the quote completely changed what it said.

“As proof, I cite history. The freer a people from their government, the better the society that has existed”

As proof you cite conjecture my friend, there is no evidence for that.

As I have said I do not have a passive view of government, I view it in the same way I view any organisation of individuals. However, as a result I see that there are costs and benefits from this organisation – and as an economist my sole goal is to discuss the costs and benefits to inform society.

I mean no disrespect but I am not going to discuss this anymore. It is neither the point of the post, or an area where I think I can add value. We are merely discussing different value judgments – and no amount of typing words will change the way either of us feels on those 🙂

What?

Government is like no other institution, especially in countries like NZ with no written constitution to contain it. It is both thief, and policeman. Our government can impose a 70% tax rate on me tomorrow, and I can’t do anything about it, because I can’t choose to be ruled by another government tomorrow. With any institution in a free society, I get stiffed, my ‘freedom’ gets trampled, I can simply choose to deal with a competitor.

This is precisely why the individual needs, more than anything, protection from government, which is the wellspring of tyranny in the powers it has assumed, sanctioned by a tyranny of the majority.

Again, despite your protestations to the reverse, or made worse because of them, you have a benign view of government, and governments are not benign. As proof, I cite history. The freer a people from their government, the better the society that has existed (assuming a non initiation of force principle as fundamental).

… another box.