How should we measure economic performance?

[Demogorgon]

A while ago, there was a thread here in OI where the discussion for a while focused on the best means of measuring an economy is. Several people remarked that per capita GDP is a poor measure, and I agree with this, using that alone simply fails to give the full picture and at any rate can be artificially high if a wealthy elite happen to be resident in a country (hence tax havens often have improbably high GDPs per capita). Using another measure is not in itself remarkable. Some places have tried different means. Bhutan for instance uses something called Gross National Happiness which factors in the general level of physical and mental health in the country as well as the health of the environment alongside economic indicators and similarly Sarkozy has been talking about using a new measure in France which also takes into account things like the environment.

Neither of the two alternatives listed above are substantially better I have to say, I just bring them up as examples. I am interested in what people think a good alternative might be. The best on offer right now is the human development index (HDI) that adds in both standards of health and education as well as economic indicators. It is flawed too however. For health it uses life expectancy at birth which is fair enough, but I think it should also use infant mortality as that is such a standard measurement of health standards. The economic indicator it uses is again simply per capita GDP so there are still plenty of problems there.

So I reckon we need a further improvement. The basic principle behind the HDI is good enough so we can use it as a starting point. The equation should also take into account infant mortality as I say and the bluntness of the economic measurement should be tempered by taking into account the GINI coefficient of income and wealth distribution (that is to say the level of inequality).

Hopefully that would make a good beginning. My question is firstly if people think my foundation (HDI modified to include infant mortality and GINI) is sound and secondly what else should be factored in? There are several other areas of importance after all. Quality of the environment is a possible one that should probably be included. What else?

[Misanthrope]

It's irrelevant. Whenever there is capitalism there is coercive exploitation and that is all that matters. I could care less about commerical superiority, a society's efficiency should not be judged by commerical or military power (to quote Hobson).

Your alternative is more rational but still irrelevant to the left's real goals.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes I agree there should be a new standard. If we use corporate yardsticks to measure the economy, then a capitalist country can seem to be flourishing even though the poor may be getting poorer and have less access to food and health care. If we use human yardsticks, then things look much different.

I think it should be based on humanitarian factors, like how easy it is for the majority of the population to have access to the advances in technology, like computers, how many choices they have in their lives, how many have the ability to do truly constructive work that they enjoy doing, and I would add health care and education as well because it's difficult to have a lot of choices if you are not health and/or educated.

Basically, there should be a complete refocus on how we should look at the economy. Techically an economy could be classified as "floushing" under our current system even though they aren't doing anything really productive or that helps the human race.

[Demogorgon]

It's irrelevant. Whenever there is capitalism there is coercive exploitation and that is all that matters. I could care less about commerical superiority, a society's efficiency should not be judged by commerical or military power (to quote Hobson).

Your alternative is more rational but still irrelevant to the left's real goals.
Standard of living is irrelevant? Measuring a country's economic competitiveness may not be something we find particularly important, but calculating the standard of living in any given place is important. It lets us know the effects of changes and allows for legitimate comparisons of different systems.

I don't want this thread to turn into an argument about whether we should measure at all. Apart from anything else, we are always going to do so anyway as some people are simply too curious about these things. I want a discussion about the best way to do so.

[Misanthrope]

Standard of living is irrelevant? Measuring a country's economic competitiveness may not be something we find particularly important, but calculating the standard of living in any given place is important. It lets us know the effects of changes and allows for legitimate comparisons of different systems.

I don't want this thread to turn into an argument about whether we should measure at all. Apart from anything else, we are always going to do so anyway as some people are simply too curious about these things. I want a discussion about the best way to do so.

What different systems?

It is straying away from the point that these economic system(s) [capitalism] don't entirely provide sufficient living and working conditions or sufficient wages for that matter. Collective struggle against all present economic systems is what gives the workers in any given state sufficient wages and working conditions.

If you don't feel like discussing my position then feel free not to respond.

[Demogorgon]

What different systems?

It is straying away from the point that these economic system(s) [capitalism] don't entirely provide sufficient living and working conditions or sufficient wages for that matter. Collective struggle against all present economic systems is what gives the workers in any given state sufficient wages and working conditions.

If you don't feel like discussing my position then feel free not to respond.
I'm not sure how this relates to what I am discussing. It is true that capitalism fails to provide sufficient standards of living for most people, but how does that relate to the desirability of measuring standards of living?

[Misanthrope]

I'm not sure how this relates to what I am discussing. It is true that capitalism fails to provide sufficient standards of living for most people, but how does that relate to the desirability of measuring standards of living?

It shows that measuring standard of living is irrelevant when the whole world is basically capitalist. When there is capitalism there is exploitation and coercion and that is what we should focus on. Measuring standard of living will just give more statistics for capitalist's sake, people will look at say North Korea or something and then they'll look at America, then they will ignorantly conclude, capitalism is far superior then socialism because non-apologetic capitalist country A has a higher standard of living than ideologically anti-capitalist but still capitalist country B. If you are going to measure anything measure how much capital is reaped from the working class in any given country.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Median or Average(whichever is lower) standard of living(NOT GDP, but stuff) divided by Median or Average(whichever is higher) Work Hours, Plus Median or Average(Whichever is lower) Education and Health(Not just life expectancy, but total health)

Using the worst of median or average i think gives a nice realistic picture of what is actually going on.

[ThorsMitersaw]

It's irrelevant. Whenever there is capitalism there is coercive exploitation and that is all that matters. I could care less about commerical superiority, a society's efficiency should not be judged by commerical or military power (to quote Hobson).

Your alternative is more rational but still irrelevant to the left's real goals.

Though I do not know what your definitions of exploitation or capitalism are, I agree with the sentiment. Total productive output of a society is fairly subjective and is inconsequential to what is ethical and what is not.

I do not know if you would be interested in it or not, but Murray Rothbard wrote many essays and chapters criticizing anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman for their utilitarinism. (which actually he was straw manned for supporting in the Anarchist FAQ) It is basically a critique of utilitarianism from a natural rights stand point. Utility can not give us an ethical standard of justice. He makes the point time and again that maximizing output is not the goal. One such example:

"In short, how many people will man the barricades and endure the many sacrifices that a consistent devotion to liberty entails, merely so that umpteen percent more people will have better bathtubs? Will they not rather set up for an easy life and forget the umpteen percent bathtubs? Ultimately, then, utilitarian economics, while indispensable in the developed structure of libertarian thought and action, is almost as unsatisfactory a basic groundwork for the movement as those opportunists who simply seek a short-range profit."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In short, how many people will man the barricades and endure the many sacrifices that a consistent devotion to liberty entails, merely so that umpteen percent more people will have better bathtubs? Will they not rather set up for an easy life and forget the umpteen percent bathtubs?If the only practical consequence of "liberty" is "umpteen percent more bathtubs," then that raises the question: Why exactly do we want this "liberty" in the first place?

On the other hand, if the practical consequences are far greater than "umpteen percent more bathtubs," then Rothbard used a straw man.

The same can be said about socialism, and that is precisely why we need a good measure of economic performance, as Demogorgon suggested. If we had socialism, but everyone lived just as they do today, then our "socialism" would be useless, wouldn't it?

More pragmatically, we need a new measure of economic performance simply as a counter-argument to the bourgeois propaganda claiming that capitalism is "the most efficient economic system."

[ThorsMitersaw]

If the only practical consequence of "liberty" is "umpteen percent more bathtubs," then that raises the question: Why exactly do we want this "liberty" in the first place?

On the other hand, if the practical consequences are far greater than "umpteen percent more bathtubs," then Rothbard used a straw man.

The same can be said about socialism, and that is precisely why we need a good measure of economic performance, as Demogorgon suggested. If we had socialism, but everyone lived just as they do today, then our "socialism" would be useless, wouldn't it?

More pragmatically, we need a new measure of economic performance simply as a counter-argument to the bourgeois propaganda claiming that capitalism is "the most efficient economic system."

No... you really do not. Liberty is a prerequisite for human flourishing. Liberty should and is valued because it allows man to pursue his own ends with his own goals. That is why utilitarian evaluations are bogus. Because they assume we all have the same goals, that we are all attempting or wanting to maximize utility toward the obtainment of one goal.

If you want an argument as to why "capitalism", by which i assume you mean this *point at america* is inefficient, then you need look no further than the socialist calculation problem brought forth by Mises. Kevin Carson applies it to vertical structure of all sorts, pointing out the efficiency of more horizontal organizxation.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Economic performance is the sum of desires. On the macro-level, it's a subject of compromise. On the micro-level, it's the satisfaction of individual wants. This perspective of micro-performance is all we should look at, because even though countries like the US have abysmally high numbers across the board compared to most other countries, there are subregions of our country where that isn't the case - both individuals and communities.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No... you really do not. Liberty is a prerequisite for human flourishing.
Eh? What do you mean by "liberty," and what is "human flourishing"?


Liberty should and is valued because it allows man to pursue his own ends with his own goals.
Nonsense. No one, in any kind of society, can ever be free to pursue whatever goals he sees fit. Society has rules that limit the range of goals we may choose from, and individuals are very strongly pushed in the direction of specific goals by the process of socialization (in other words, most people never make a conscious decision to pursue a certain goal in life - they just "go with the flow").


That is why utilitarian evaluations are bogus. Because they assume we all have the same goals, that we are all attempting or wanting to maximize utility toward the obtainment of one goal.
You misunderstand utilitarianism. It does not assume we all have the same goals. It assumes that all the various goals can be reduced to one common denominator: happiness.


If you want an argument as to why "capitalism", by which i assume you mean this *point at america* is inefficient, then you need look no further than the socialist calculation problem brought forth by Mises. Kevin Carson applies it to vertical structure of all sorts, pointing out the efficiency of more horizontal organization.
The socialist calculation problem is a load of crap, the Austrian School is pseudoscience, the idea that vertical structures are inefficient flies in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, and, most importantly, none of this is ever going to persuade anyone to oppose capitalism.

Go to a developing nation and tell someone that quantitative measures of living standards don't matter, and watch her laugh in your face. Improving living standards is the alpha and omega of politics for most of the world. It has a greater importance to more people than just about anything else. Clean water, cheap medicine, good roads and educational opportunities will always, always trump vague notions of "liberty" and "human flourishing."

[trivas7]

[...] No one, in any kind of society, can ever be free to pursue whatever goals he sees fit.
W/ an attitude like that you'll never win anyone to your cause. No one voluntarily gives up whatever positive freedoms s/he has or strives to have.

[Demogorgon]

W/ an attitude like that you'll never win anyone to your cause. No one voluntarily gives up whatever positive freedoms s/he has or strives to have.
How is he asking people to give up freedom? It is a simple expression of reality that we are confined in what we do to a greater or lesser extent. The nature of society is that we have to compromise our wishes with those of others. To do whatever you please is to run roughshod over others and while certain political systems (fascism for instance) seek to grant that privilege to a certain elite, even they are going to impose some restrictions on the behaviour of that elite.

[trivas7]

[...]The nature of society is that we have to compromise our wishes with those of others. To do whatever you please is to run roughshod over others [...]
You, too, -- like all authoritarians -- value poorly the benefits of positive freedom.

[Demogorgon]

You, too, -- like all authoritarians -- value poorly the benefits of positive freedom.
Do you even know what positive freedom means? It means the ability (as opposed to mere abstract right) to act to fulfill ones own potential and is the sort of thing Miseans bittelry oppose. At any rate, my simple statement of fact (that society means compromise) is certainly compatible with that. A genuinely free society will by definition restrain the actions of its people to the extent that they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom.

Making incoherent accusations of authoritarianism at me is not going to change that.

[trivas7]

[...] A genuinely free society will by definition restrain the actions of its people to the extent that they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom.

What does "they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom" mean? A genuinely free society insures the rights of its member to do as they please consistent w/ the non-aggression principle. I deny this means compromise.

[Demogorgon]

What does "they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom" mean? A genuinely free society insures the rights of its member to do as they please consistent w/ the non-aggression principle.
You have just shown yourself to be flinging random words at the computer screen and hope they pass for an argument. In one post you praised positive freedom and in the next you now say freedom is about the non-aggression principle, the argument most commonly used against positive liberty.

[trivas7]

[...] In one post you praised positive freedom and in the next you now say freedom is about the non-aggression principle, the argument most commonly used against positive liberty.
No, freedom isn't about the non-aggression principle; it is its prerequisite. Like all authoritarians, you think freedom is something you impose, not something you allow.

[Demogorgon]

No, freedom isn't about the non-aggression principle; it is its prerequisite. Like all authoritarians, you think freedom is something you impose, not something you allow.
If the non-aggression principle is a pre-requisite for freedom then positive freedom is utterly incompatible with freedom.

I know your posts are always utterly inconsistent, but even by your standards this takes the biscuit. I know you like your dialectics and all that, but simultaneously holding two utterly contradictory opinions is quite an achievement in its own perverse sort of way.

[trivas7]

If the non-aggression principle is a pre-requisite for freedom then positive freedom is utterly incompatible with freedom.

How so?

[ThorsMitersaw]

Eh? What do you mean by "liberty," and what is "human flourishing"?
Human flourishing, as in Aristotlean eudimoneaistic ethics. Liberty is quite simply a state of freedom.

Nonsense. No one, in any kind of society, can ever be free to pursue whatever goals he sees fit. Society has rules that limit the range of goals we may choose from, and individuals are very strongly pushed in the direction of specific goals by the process of socialization (in other words, most people never make a conscious decision to pursue a certain goal in life - they just "go with the flow").
Well yes. There is the demand of equal liberty, which to me simply restates a position of natural rights. My freedom ends where yours begins... that old (sometimes abused and contorted) adage.

You misunderstand utilitarianism. It does not assume we all have the same goals. It assumes that all the various goals can be reduced to one common denominator: happiness.
Show me how one can utilize towards happiness. What does one measure happiness in? Utils? Happimeters? Pleasure/lbs.? Utilitarinism claims to utilize towards something immeasurable and not entirely objective, while attempting to side step the philosophical question of what happiness is. Which is where and why Aristotlean philosophy trumps it. "Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences?" - Roderick T. Long (praxeology.net/whyjust.htm). In this he lays out just about everything I am speaking of. Why utilitarinism is wrong, and why justice/equal liberty/natural rights is desirable as a prerequisite for a productive society.

The socialist calculation problem is a load of crap, the Austrian School is pseudoscience, the idea that vertical structures are inefficient flies in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, and, most importantly, none of this is ever going to persuade anyone to oppose capitalism.
I think Kevin Carson, "free market anti-capitalist", would rub your nose in this pile of... crap. Economies of scale have a cutting off point where the costs of maintaining it either must be socialized forcibly on teh rest of society via state or its growth must end. It is not coincidence that industry/business size has grown with the power of the state.

Go to a developing nation and tell someone that quantitative measures of living standards don't matter, and watch her laugh in your face.
conflating happiness with material possessions are we? Whats more is you seem to assume that equality is not born of liberty, but the other way around, which destroys any notion of freedom in society.

Improving living standards is the alpha and omega of politics for most of the world. It has a greater importance to more people than just about anything else. Clean water, cheap medicine, good roads and educational opportunities will always, always trump vague notions of "liberty" and "human flourishing."
Then man kind will forever damn itself. The luxuries that we possess are here despite the best efforts of the state and their corporate lackies to claim them all for themselves, not because of them. I swear sometimes it is like I am talking to a mainstream libertarian.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Do you even know what positive freedom means? It means the ability (as opposed to mere abstract right) to act to fulfill ones own potential and is the sort of thing Miseans bittelry oppose. At any rate, my simple statement of fact (that society means compromise) is certainly compatible with that. A genuinely free society will by definition restrain the actions of its people to the extent that they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom.

Making incoherent accusations of authoritarianism at me is not going to change that.

you obviously have no idea what positive liberty is in political philosophy or legal philosophy. It is not freedom FROM, but freedom TO. It necessarily implies obligations upon others to act in a certain manner to provide you with whatever it is, X. I for one, will not be shackled with the golden chains of 5 year plans or new deals or economic stimuli, in order to attempt to facilitate more things for you or anyone else. I am not a thrall, I am an abolitionist.

"A genuinely free society will by definition restrain the actions of its people to the extent that they cannot infringe upon others rights to their own equal level of freedom." - This is essentially negative liberty, though I can see already your attempts in it to provide for duty from others.

[ThorsMitersaw]

If the non-aggression principle is a pre-requisite for freedom then positive freedom is utterly incompatible with freedom.

Exactly. Hence libertarian rejection of "positive freedoms". And rightfully so. I agree with his criticism that freedom is not something to be imposed. You can not order liberty, to take from Proudhon a tad.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Human flourishing, as in Aristotlean eudimoneaistic ethics.
I must confess I'm not familiar with Aristotlean eudimoneaistic ethics. Can you sum up the concept of human flourishing for me?


Liberty is quite simply a state of freedom.
You've avoided my question. Liberty and freedom are synonyms, the only difference between them being etymological ("liberty" comes from a Latin root and "freedom" comes from a German one). The problem is, there are dozens of different views and definitions of freedom. Which one do you subscribe to?


Well yes. There is the demand of equal liberty, which to me simply restates a position of natural rights. My freedom ends where yours begins... that old (sometimes abused and contorted) adage.
Where do natural rights come from? What makes them "natural"?


Show me how one can utilize towards happiness. What does one measure happiness in? Utils? Happimeters? Pleasure/lbs.?
What does one measure liberty in, then? And if you cannot objectively measure liberty, does that mean that you cannot determine which society provides more liberty than another, and you are therefore unable to say what kind of social system is best for human freedom?

No? Well then, if you can say that one society provides more freedom than another without a clear objective standard of freedom, then I can also say that one society provides more happiness than another without a clear objective standard of happiness.


Utilitarinism claims to utilize towards something immeasurable and not entirely objective, while attempting to side step the philosophical question of what happiness is.
Happiness is whatever people want it to be. To be more exact, your happiness is, by definition, whatever you want for yourself. Maximizing happiness means maximizing the fulfillment of people's wishes.


I think Kevin Carson, "free market anti-capitalist", would rub your nose in this pile of... crap.
I can drop names just as well as you can: Taylor, Dickinson, Lange, Cottrell and Cockshott. There have been many socialists engaged in the economic calculation debate, and I find their arguments entirely persuasive.


Economies of scale have a cutting off point where the costs of maintaining it either must be socialized forcibly on teh rest of society via state or its growth must end. It is not coincidence that industry/business size has grown with the power of the state.
Economies of scale govern the optimal size of a production unit. What do they have to do with the question of ownership over that production unit? Just because the state is the sole producer of X, that does not mean the state will attempt to produce the entire quantity of X in a single giant factory.


conflating happiness with material possessions are we?
Yes, actually. For the majority of the human species, the best way to increase happiness is to give them more material goods. For the people who lack food, clean water, decent housing or medicine - in other words, most people on Earth - the best way to increase their happiness is to give them food, clean water, decent housing and medicine.

Only the lucky few have already attained such a high standard of living that increasing their material possessions won't have much of an impact on their happiness. Eventually, thanks to socialism, all of Mankind will reach this level of prosperity. But until that time, our first concern should always be to provide the basic necessities of life.


Whats more is you seem to assume that equality is not born of liberty, but the other way around, which destroys any notion of freedom in society.
I define liberty as equality of power. Liberty is a special case of equality.


Then man kind will forever damn itself.
Explain. What is wrong with pursuing a better standard of living for the majority of people?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

you obviously have no idea what positive liberty is in political philosophy or legal philosophy. It is not freedom FROM, but freedom TO.
Yes. That is what Demogorgon said. Positive liberty is the ability to do things, the freedom TO. And it's also the only freedom that really matters. Negative freedom without positive freedom is worthless. If I don't have the ability - the freedom TO - climb Everest, for example, then I really don't care if no one is stopping me from doing it.


[Positive freedom] necessarily implies obligations upon others to act in a certain manner to provide you with whatever it is, X.
So does negative freedom. If, for example, I am to be free FROM trucks driving over my lawn, this places an obligation on all truck drivers to act in such a way as to avoid my lawn.

An obligation to act in such a way as to avoid stepping on my toes is still an obligation to act in a certain manner. All of my freedoms place an obligation on others to act in a certain manner - or, at least, they reduce the number of actions that others may choose from.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Yes. That is what Demogorgon said. Positive liberty is the ability to do things, the freedom TO.
This is a misunderstanding: "A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions". Positive rights entail PERFORMANCE by others. They entail, essentially, a positive obligation to DO something by others... this is in any other sense: slavery. *shrug*

And it's also the only freedom that really matters. Negative freedom without positive freedom is worthless.
the right to be left to do as one pleases is nothing without being ensalved in order to provide others with goods and services? hmm. odd.

If I don't have the ability - the freedom TO - climb Everest, for example, then I really don't care if no one is stopping me from doing it.
Nor does it mean anyone else should be coerced into providing you with the means or training to do so

If, for example, I am to be free FROM trucks driving over my lawn, this places an obligation on all truck drivers to act in such a way as to avoid my lawn.
Again a misunderstanding. Negative rights do not dictate duties form others to provide you with anything. They both concern action but only one concerns actions that violate innocence, the other demands actions upon innocents.

I think in all of this you may be confusing negative/pos liberties with neg/pos rights. Not that the positive sides of both are not equally disgusting

This is a good paper, I think, on why one ought to reject positive "rights":
http://www.libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-6.pdf

so is this:
http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm#IV


and here is a pretty good blog entry about it:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/12/19/positive-quot-rights-quot.aspx

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is a misunderstanding: "A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions".
That's what I said, and what Demogorgon said. Where is the misunderstanding?


Positive rights entail PERFORMANCE by others. They entail, essentially, a positive obligation to DO something by others... this is in any other sense: slavery. *shrug*
Since you feel entitled to use insanely strong words like "slavery" to refer to any obligation you don't like, I will use equally strong words: My patience has entirely run out with mindless libertarian drones who idiotically bleat out the word "slavery" at the slightest hint of any kind of social rule or duty which may cause them a mild inconvenience.

If you continue to use the word "slavery" in this manner, I will say that any physical injury amounts to murder - nay, genocide - and that any negative expression towards me on your part amounts to an imminent death threat. Also, I am currently drinking an ocean of water from a glass, my lungs contain an atmosphere, and candles burn with the heat of a thousand suns.


the right to be left to do as one pleases is nothing...
...unless one has the ability to do that which one pleases. Yes. How is that so difficult to understand?


Nor does it mean anyone else should be coerced into providing you with the means or training to do so
Define "coercion."


Again a misunderstanding. Negative rights do not dictate duties form others to provide you with anything. They both concern action but only one concerns actions that violate innocence, the other demands actions upon innocents.
"Actions that violate innocence"? Bullshit. Action is action. Constraints upon my freedom to act are constraints upon my freedom to act. Negative rights still dictate duties upon others.

It is even possible that it may take more effort on your part to comply with the duties dictated by a negative right than the duties dictated by a positive right. Suppose, for example, that my negative rights dictate you must avoid my property while driving, and my positive rights dictate you are to provide me with one liter of gasoline. If my property is of such size and location that it will cost you more than a liter of gasoline to drive around it, my negative right constrains you more than my positive right.


I think in all of this you may be confusing negative/pos liberties with neg/pos rights. Not that the positive sides of both are not equally disgusting
The only disgusting thing here are your views, libertarian. I am well acquainted with those views, and I reject them for the repulsive defense of exploitation that they are. I am not "confusing" things; I am rejecting your concepts, your definitions, and your distinctions. I do not believe there is any real distinction between the "positive" and "negative" sides, nor between rights and freedoms.

All rights and freedoms are the same thing: Rules of behavior in society. They all serve to limit the range of actions that may be performed by individuals. Yes, even freedoms limit actions. Specifically, my freedoms are limits upon the actions of others. For example, saying that everyone is free to speak their mind is the same thing as saying that everyone is forbidden to prevent others from speaking their mind.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

A genuinely free society insures the rights of its member to do as they please consistent w/ the non-aggression principle. I deny this means compromise.

The Non-aggression principle is a pretty big compromise. There really is no denying that that.
Don't murder, compromise.
Don't steal, compromise.

Good compromise? Usually. But compromise none the less.

[Judicator]

The problem with GDP is that at best it will be an income measure, while in many cases we're interested in knowing how much wealth a society has - natural resources, human capital, etc.

Ideally you'd have something that would estimate the net present value of everything in a country, but I don't know of anything like that.