Originally Posted By: sini


This is valid criticism, but it can be equally applied to any other form of governance. Still, this criticism is overly general - I hope you would agree that economical policy or questions of taxation produce very quantifiable "greater good".


Thats because the objectives in those fields have already been outlined and agreed upon , whereas "greater good" as a term itself remains vague. Economics and taxation revolve around quantifiable flows of currency. "Good" is an abstract term, whereas currency reflects an abstract concept of wealth - it is the fact that the concept of currency has been created and refined that allows us to thereby get a reliable measure of wealth. No "currency" has yet been created for the abstract concept of "good".

Quote:


Can you demonstrate that current alternatives of dogma and guessing are any better? With empiricism there is a feedback process that would produce better results, does such process exist in the current system?


In theory the current system should already work that way.

When proposing drastic change, I think the burden is on the proposition to relay why the new paradigm would be different and better. Often times pointing out faults in the current system is enough to garner support, and a point I repeatedly try to make is that I find this to be mistaken thinking.

Quote:

No, I use this to highlight the case of private enterprise intentionally engaging in a disinformation campaign to preserve profitable status quo. The fact that the status quo is a result of government intervention is only coincidental.


I think you got the cart before the horse here. The fact that government has been empowered to fiddle with economics in this matter is problem. This incentives people to work on making govt act in a non rational manner in of itself for private gain - this has been shown in all governmental systems tried thus far.

The fact that money is what people are twisting govt to obtain in this case is what is coincidental.

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