One way to use science to determine the proper size of government is to consider
(1) people's value-based preferences for an equal society vs. a prosperous society;
(2) what relative levels of equality vs. prosperity are in the feasible set given a variety of policies (welfare policies, taxation levels, tax regressivity, etc.);
(3) pursue the policy in the feasible set (2) which maximizes value according to criterion (1).

Of course, these steps can be taken with various degrees of actual empiricism. Instead of studying people's value preferences, one could just substitute one's own preferences. That would be a bad approximation. Alternatively, one might not have very good data about what policy choices lead to what inequality/prosperity combinations. In that case we should consider our predictions to be noisy, and decide accordingly.

But in general a framework along these lines provides a rational basis for evaluating different policy recommendations. One can also scientifically study (a la public choice economics) the transformation of a policy from its conception to “post-sausage-making.” Does rent-seeking go up? Etc.

In other words, rather than using prejudices to guide our action, we should use empiricism wherever possible. Even if it is only “partly possible” (because empirical data is limited or predictions are less reliable), it is better to make scientifically-informed predictions about the consequences of policy decisions, than it is to make bad, prejudice-driven predictions about policy efficacy. Do you disagree?

One way to use science to determine the proper size of government is to consider
(1) people's value-based preferences for an equal society vs. a prosperous society;
(2) what relative levels of equality vs. prosperity are in the feasible set given a variety of policies (welfare policies, taxation levels, tax regressivity, etc.);
(3) pursue the policy in the feasible set (2) which maximizes value according to criterion (1).

Of course, these steps can be taken with various degrees of actual empiricism. Instead of studying people's value preferences, one could just substitute one's own preferences. That would be a bad approximation. Alternatively, one might not have very good data about what policy choices lead to what inequality/prosperity combinations. In that case we should consider our predictions to be noisy, and decide accordingly.

But in general a framework along these lines provides a rational basis for evaluating different policy recommendations. One can also scientifically study (a la public choice economics) the transformation of a policy from its conception to “post-sausage-making.” Does rent-seeking go up? Etc.

In other words, rather than using prejudices to guide our action, we should use empiricism wherever possible. Even if it is only “partly possible” (because empirical data is limited or predictions are less reliable), it is better to make scientifically-informed predictions about the consequences of policy decisions, than it is to make bad, prejudice-driven predictions about policy efficacy. Do you disagree?

Surely a truly scientific, results-oriented approach to governance is what underlies the consequentialist critique of too much government? And thus science can and should be used to choose the proper size of government, as well as determine how often it is worth trying to fine-tune or micromanage outcomes?

Science isn't about the illusion of playing god. That's naive science. Science is about understanding the world, including what is possible and what is impossible. Don't diss science if the people you're dissing aren't being scientific.

If your critique of governance is based on neither an empirically observed nor a folk theory of human action but rather based on intrinsic goodness or badness of having a big government, then that's a problem with your critique.

Horseshit on stilts!

If there is anything we need right now, it’s a cranky minority party that reacts with zealous incredulity at the vast outpouring of expenditure and views with innate suspicion the claims of managerial liberalism. Instead we get awkward governors mumbling anathemas at the US Geologic Survey and talk-radio hosts giving recursive stemwinders to the choir.

Forgive me for not innately grasping the difference between “cranky reaction with zealous incredulity” and the apparently entirely different “awkward mumbled anathemas” and “recursive stemwinders.”

Yes, the GOP “lacks the wherewithal to oppose effectively.” That would be related to having a near-irrelevant minority in Congress, with a filibuster in the Senate only being able to be sustained by a unanimous vote of three moderates.

All the libertarians who said that the GOP needed to be effectively punished for their lack of principles got their wish. But in return, the GOP lost all power to “oppose effectively.” They are left with nothing more than rhetoric, whether mere “recursive stemwinders” and “mumbling anathemas,” or the more highly praised “cranky zealous incredulity.”

yes, it's a bit incoherent and engages in an awful lot of cheerleading, but this was a CPAC speech and not the second treatise. i've certainly heard more reactionary things in my life – pat buchanan's keynote at the '92 republican convention for instance. it wasn't 'a time for choosing', but point me in the direction of a better statement of opposition to current Democratic agenda.

can you write a post or link to a post that explicitly points out where limbaugh is wrong?