Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: starvation and freedom
Message-ID: <1819@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 01:58:04 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1819
Posted: Sat Nov 17 01:58:04 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Nov-84 02:46:50 EST
Lines: 82
Nf-ID: #R:frog:-13000:inmet:7800180:000:3971
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Nov 15 15:17:00 1984

Thanks, Dave Hudson, for a thoughtful article, one which stands
up well under several re-readings.

>***** inmet:net.politics / frog!tdh /  6:54 pm  Nov  8, 1984
>>>I have, of course, exaggerated here to make a point: it is difficult,
>>>probably impossible, to measure the "net gain" or "net loss" of freedom.
>
>>Then it is also impossible to say that such govt. activity would lower
>>freedom. ...
>
>It is typical of the mathematical but pseudo-scientific approach taken by
>many economists and their followers that measurement is confounded with
>evaluation.  I can say that this light is brighter than that light without
>being able to measure either the brightness of either or the difference
>between the brightnesses of both.  But in case one is willing to argue that
>a crude form of measurement is being used in making that judgement, there
>are numerous examples where a comparison is made without measurement being
>involved.
>
>Suppose we have two things.  One, Y, has qualities A, B, and C.  The other,
>Z, has quality A.  These are to be evaluated against X-ness, a quality
>composed of qualities A, B, C, and D.  It can clearly be said that Z has
>less X-ness than Y.  

Suppose D mitigates or nullifies B and C, and
without D, thing Y has less X-ness than if it only had quality A.
Similarly, extremes can blow things apart.  It could be that some balance
between B and C is needed, and that B and C are badly out of joint in
Z.  

As an example, suppose we consider two experimental rats:  One
has a body with no immune system and no intestinal flora.  The other
has intestinal flora and NO immune system capable of rendering the
rat safe from the flora harmless.

Which one is more "healthy", given that "health" is composed here
of having intestinal flora (to help with digestion) AND an immune system?

We will see that the rat with neither flora nor immune system appears to
act more like the rat with both than the rat with just the flora (in a
germ-free environment, of course).  My understanding is that the
rat without the immune system, but with flora, dies.

Although the example is contrived, I think it serves my purpose -- 
one cannot conclude that a greater number of points of similarity
with some model means a greater similarity to that model.  Part
of this stems from the fact that the "points" of similarity (the
criterion for what a separate "point" would be) are subjective
decisions, not normally inarguable.

>The gain or loss can also be subjectively summarized
>by such as "much" better or worse, if the values of the viewer are
>understood to be the basis of evaluation, in the same manner as the
>difference is viewed as being a gain or loss (in other than in a purely
>arbitrary sense) in the first place.

This was part of my original point, though I'd thought about it 
relatively little:  One can say only SUBJECTIVELY that net freedom
would be increased or decreased by some action.  If I used the
word "measure" inadvisedly I apologize.  What I meant to point
out was that it would be very hard to compare the point loss
of freedom with the alleged societal gain of freedom.  This is true even
if one is willing to accept subjective criteria (so long as one
wants to do a good job).  Without measurement, of course, 
such things are matters of conviction, not science.

>The implications of this kind of problem for economics are sweeping, for
>a radical element of subjectivity is involved in every human choice, not
>only in relating the Bs and Cs with respect to one person, but also in
>relating the As of B's and C's.  The things to be chosen among have some
>objective existence, but the means of choosing among them is necessarily
>in part subjective.  This fact is too often overlooked, leading to the
>hilarious but painfully common spectacle of "subjective conclusions
>parading as objectivity".
>
>						David Hudson
>

Again, thanks for a solid contribution to the discussion.  
						
						- Nat Howard