Frequently, when economics are discussed people falsely believe that everyone has the same underpinning moral evaluations or the same ideals or objectives to what a economic system should do. As economics is an interesting combination of mathematics, politics, history, morality and law it is no surprise that we come to such wildly different outcomes to what type of systems we propose in terms of the relation of the government in said system, in spite of the fact that we all probably have a very narrow idea of what type of society we would like to live in.
It is true that the ultimate aim of people applying economic means vary wildly, but that is no fault of economics. Economics simply describes the best way to achieve an end, without any subjective valuation of those ends. If you want to achieve low unemployment and high salaries for workers there are better and worse ways to do this, and economics can illuminate those means. If you want to create a rich merchant class and keep the masses in poverty there are better and worse ways to achieve this as well, and economics similarly can describe how to do so. When we argue economics we tend to generally assume that we are aiming at the same goals: the betterment of human society, but again economics does not care about subjective human valuations.
Economics is a subset of praxeology, the general science of human action and therefore is independent from politics, morality and law. There are some mathematics in it to be sure, and there is economic history, and being the science of human action it undoubtedly affects politics, morality and law, but as a discipline it is separate and cannot be conflated with any of those other subjects.
However, if you want to move this discussion elsewhere I would be willing as I don't want to derail your thread. This response is probably not quite what you were looking for?