Hi Mark,

Sorry, I barely have time to post at the moment, so haven’t had much chance to look at the thread.  I will remember to have a look another time 😉

What can I say, the Euro crisis keeps me away from blogging – another failure of the Eurozone IMO

Whoops: your site doesn’t take html url tag links. Link above was:
 
http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/death-of-classical-liberalism-part-i.html

I’ve no idea if you even still looking at this thread, Matt, but I’ve put ‘frosty’ economists in my last blog post: <a href=”http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/death-of-classical-liberalism-part-i.html”>Death of Classical Liberalism: Part I.</a>   😉

… the counterfactual which is a tyranny of the minority.

But in a society which constitutionally protects the rights of the individual, and polices the non-initiation of force principle, then a tyranny of the minority is not possible 🙂
 
Do you think our current tyranny of the majorities are working:
Economically?
Philosophically / morally?
If you have no privacy from the state, how are you not living in a state closer to a police state than civilised? And does this worry you?
 
Why is talking to economists such a cold blooded affair? (Rhetorical 🙂 )

Measurement error is likely to be a major issue here – as economic freedom and broad freedom are intrinsically very different.

And I think explaining why reported/revealed preferences are different is illuminating for the reason you are stating it is not – you then have to explain why that exists, and try to understand why the catch word of “freedom” is used as a focal point for people.

” But implementing utilitarian principles always changes this to a very different position: that is, ,the village owns me. It doesn’t, and that is a state of slavery. And even Rousseau in his Social Contract stated clearly no man would logically trade his freedom for slavery.”

The village is not a choice making object, the individual is.  But undeniably, individuals may be willing to give up some choice on the basis of how it works within a group.

“Tell me how you determine what this muddled ‘middle ground’ is?”

I don’t need to determine what the optimal middle ground is to prove the point that a trade-off exists – I just need to illustrate that choosing an extreme of “complete freedom” and “complete slavery” can be improved upon.  In truth, the choice isn’t as stark as “freedom” vs “slavery”, and painting it solely in those terms over simplifies the issues people face.

When it comes to discussing optimality, as an economist and a utilitarian I prefer mechanisms where people can reveal true value – I tend to favour the market, and the use of democracy as a mechanism for co-operation and an imperfect way of determining social value.

I freely admit that democracy leads to a tyranny of the majority – but I would rather have a tyranny of the majority tempered by the free admission of trade-offs, than the counterfactual which is a tyranny of the minority 😉

I was referring to a potential discrepancy between the concept of freedom discussed and the one measured.

I don’t find the idea of reported/revealed particularly illuminating because it just prompts the question of why they’re different. And then you’re back to possible signalling.

Remember, the only person that is truly free is completely alone and without possessions – most people would have a better quality of life in some middle ground.
 
No, Matt, this is where it goes wrong. To fall back onto the cliche, you are saying that I am ‘part of the village’, thus there are trade offs, and yes of course I am part of the village. But implementing utilitarian principles always changes this to a very different position: that is, ,the village owns me. It doesn’t, and that is a state of slavery. And even Rousseau in his Social Contract stated clearly no man would logically trade his freedom for slavery.
 
Tell me how you determine what this muddled ‘middle ground’ is?

Reported vs revealed isn’t measurement error; it’s notional vs effective demand.

Measurement error isn’t a very sexy explanation, Matt 😉