On Thu, 1 May 1997, Jay Hanson mailto:[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Therefore, I suggest that we adopt a new worldwide organizing
> principle that attempts to "minimize human suffering" [6] by,
> among other things, requiring economic activity to serve
> social ends.  Moreover, this new principle MUST be based on
> objective [7] measures of human welfare, otherwise political
> accountability is not possible.

Yes, but what will be the social ends? Minimizing suffering can't be
determined without some consensus about social ends. Peoples material and
social well being are interdependent and interelated. Determining social
ends IS a political problem, abliet it should involve a weighing of all the
evidence. You can't unilaterally demand people accept scientific evidence
unless the evidence and its interpretations can be scrutinized for their
social and political biases.

Any measure of human welfare is subjective, because it presupposes a
social end which are always arrived at politically. You can only speak of
an "objective" measure if you have the power to enforce certain social
ideals, or if the measure  applies to a group who already enjoy a
consensus about the same social ends.

> Notes:
> 1 Neoclassical economics admits to NO objective measures
>   of human welfare.  Thus, the economist's claim that
>   economic growth makes people "better off" must be seen
>   as only a political ideology.
>

Yes that's right. But instead of searching for objective measures of
human welfare it would be better to realize that human welfare IS a
political problem. ie That everyone has a different idea of what it means
to feel "well". However, I agree that the neoclassical expectation that the
"competive markets" ALONE can provide well being for everyone is obsurd and
dangerous. But I also consider it dangerous to suppose there is an objective measure
of human welfare.

>   Here is an example of Nobel Prize-winning politics:
>
>   "Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an
>    exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation
>    is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place
>    unless both parties do benefit." [ p. xv, FREE TO CHOOSE,
>    Milton Friedman; Avon, 1980; ISBN 0-380-52548-8 ]
>

Of course this simplistic, but it is also partially true to the extent that
people are *hypothetically* modeled as "self interested" beings. But who gets
to pass judgement as to whether each transaction maybe harming others,
and how will the standards be determined for making these judgements?

I say that following democratic principles and procedures is the best way
to do this. Once that is done, then an attempt can be made to apply some
*tentative* objective measures.

Harry