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