Empirically is not an application method here, its an ideology. Because first of all, we would have to agree on greater good. There is not an objective standard for this. I can already tell that we will not agree on what is good, and what is not - let alone a universal method for weighting degrees of goodness for comparison even when we do agree something is good.

Second of all empiricism has its own faults which I am sure you are aware of. These faults are exacerbated the more complex the system being subject to study.

It sounds more like what you are really advocating is a form of rationalism.

Now if we are to talk about ending sugar subsidies.. that is something we can agree on. This is a large part of the reason I object to your lambasting of the free market here. Sugar is heavily subsidized, distorting the market by underpricing sugar artificially. Which is both bad for the economy, and in this case may be detrimental to health by making sugar much more calorie efficient per dollar than it should be.

You used a case of known govt interventionism to attack market economics, which does not follow.

My core objection to your form of empiricism, is the injection of politics into daily living. This is fait accompli when the govt starts getting involved, turning the actions of everyday living into political actions. Turning anything anyone could ever scape up even a superficial case against into a political topic.

While I do not have a blanket objection to some forms of rationalism per se - I think it of prime importance that these types of scenarios are accounted for and avoided. The methods and metrics are more important than the concept itself here, else where does it start and where does it end?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)