Negative economics vs. positive economics: A vital distinction between utilitarianism and deontology
Society is structured around Humean presumptions in the sense of getting a “should” from an “is”.
Throughout most of history, societies were founded on negative economics, which uses threats of violence as a way to enforce order, instead of letting order be achieved organically through voluntary incentives and value exchange. Most people think this is OK, convinced that this is the best way we know. But is it?
Positive economics is getting anything you want from people by providing incentives. You promise something beneficial to them, if they behave as you wish. If they choose not to behave as you want, then there is no punishment, and you accept their right to decline indulging you.
Negative economics is getting anything you want from people by providing threats. You promise something harmful to them, if they don't behave as you wish. If they choose to behave as you wish, then there is no over-and-above reward for them, because you don’t accept their right to decline indulging you.
Negative economics assumes there is one winner imposing their will on the loser who must submit. Positive economics assumes both sides are winners, with each gaining more perceived value than what they give.
Negative economics is based on utilitarianism. This suggests that any means is justifiable, even atrocities, if the perceived ends is to be achieved. This utilitarianism is exactly what every single dictatorship in history was based on. All oppressive regimes have “justifications” for a “greater good”. Positive economics is based on deontology and moral ethics. It asserts that, if the means is immoral, then the ends cannot be moral either, no matter how “good” the ends is perceived to be. Deontology states that the ends is not worth it, if the means is immoral.
Oddly enough, our personal relationships are all based on positive economics. You do not base your relationships on threats or coercion. You understand that your relationships are voluntary, and that they are reciprocal two-way street win-win agreements. You understand that you must provide value to others so that they will want to provide value to you. If you give them value, you get the benefit of their company. If you don’t provide value, then there is no punishment; you only lose the over-and-above benefit of their company that was never your entitled right in the first place. You don’t have relationships based on threats, unless you’re in a toxic abusive relationship, which isn’t worth having.
The same goes for the free market economy: every company, employee, employer, or freelancer understands that, if they are to get value from the economy, they need to provide value. The value they give is less for them than the value they get, and the value they receive from the economy is perceived less for the economy than the value it gets. Simple win-win positive economics are the driving force behind economic growth maximization. Win-lose negative economics in the market are usually mafia-type racketeering and “protection” schemes that are unsustainable because of the resentment they build up against them, and the violence they invite.
So, where do we actually use negative economics, then? Public policy, schooling and parenting. For some reason, we understand that, in our personal and professional relationships, positive economics is the way to go. Why is it that we build our public policy, our schooling and our parenting on threats of violence justified by presumptuous utilitarian scientism instead of incentives empowered by deontology?
Which one are you? What if we could structure society around positive economics? What if we could teach children to behave in a sociably coherent way by using incentives instead of threats?
