First time reader and commenter here. I agree with what I understand is your basic frustration. This is one reason I vote partly based on who appears to be the least likely to "just do something". Being wise enough to know when to NOT to anything, especially when it comes to governmental intrusion, goes a long way with me. Unfortunately my choices in this are usually relatively limited.
While I would be interested as well, politics is about winning, and these most assuredly work counter to that. While we might be better off if everyone was willing to adopt losing policies, they never will, so embrace the absurdism. Sometimes exaggeration is closer to the truth than reality by lifting our eyes to the horizon. Sometimes there really are net benefits to be had all around. It seems like politics is the definition of search, just on longer time scales. We will make those decisions together is the only system that has worked and likely the only one that can.
A system that spends the most is almost bound to spend more on innovation, both good and bad, and more innovation in one area can lead to less in others. Let us have more good and less bad and tell me how you will do this. Or not. I would rather win.
Echoing @efalken, while I share your preferences, I don't see much incentive for policy change advocates to do as you ask.
Very few voters have time, patience, or interest to work thru the pro-and-con arguments for any given change. Policy advocates act as lawyers, making the best case they can for their preferred policy - that excludes discussion of tradeoffs, and admissions that their policy may not work as planned (and therefore needs monitoring).
More valuable would be an institutional mechanism creating incentives for policy advocates to behave better.
Who is this "we" who " can’t get more of something good without also getting less of something else good.". While design flaws exist, most political conflicts are primarily "who-whom", e g. conflicts over which group gets to decide things. Considerations are presented as being about production possibility frontiers but connected insiders regard them as zero sum games between insiders.
Example: everyone knew for a long time that can medallion monopolies were socially harmful, but they provide a context for concentrating wealth among a politically meaningful group of insiders. The problem was solved, not by finding a Pareto improvement, but by finding a more connected and more concentrated group of insiders who were able to create a public benefit by taking a chunk out of those monopoly rents.
In the comments section of a blog, you should try to get to your point quickly. Asking someone to watch a 3hr video to understand your point is asking WAY too much.
As you know, most political discourse purposely avoids most of what I’ve asked for here. Advocates instead tend to frame each dispute as a simple and fundamental moral choice. Details are avoided, dangers are exaggerated, and tradeoffs, search, and learning are rarely unacknowledged as issues. Politicians refer to goals and avoid talking about difficulties of implementation, incentives, measurement, or learning.
This sounds like something my favorite filmmaker Adam Curtis, would make. Infact, he has an entire film titled, HyperNormalisation - A different experience of reality.
You should watch it & maybe write for us your review on what you think abou it :)
I share your preferences on this, but I don't think they have ever been the characteristic of someone who successfully implemented radical change, and thus anyone who emulates such persons.
Radical change is rarely good because it's easier to screw things up than make them better, however, sometimes it works (eg, slavery, democracy, a republican form of govt). Alas, everyone points to these exceptions as the rule and so argue for radical change that will elevate us just like, say, giving women the right to vote.
Further, radical changes are rarely diagnosed within a generation, as the initial implementers selectively present metrics that allow us to see what in hindsight is abject failure (eg, Khmer Rouge). A more mundane example is light rail, hailed as a great social good, helping the poor and the environment. In my town of Minneapolis it's disaster, hardly ever used by people going to work, doesn't cover it's marginal costs, but the local media and academics don't care to highlight any of this. Thus, the downside for anyone promoting radical change is pretty absent in their lifetimes, as others will have to pay for it, and by then one can point fingers at many things (eg, Democrats defend Obamacare only as a transition to socialized medicine, not how it's actually working, blaming anything but Obama).
Advocates for massive new programs are 'all-in', true believers, and know that bumps on the road must be censored to avoid backsliding. Anyone proposing radical change will violate all of your principles among others, and are perfectly fine with it. They have hope and faith that they will succeed and someday be in the pantheon of heroes kids learn about in grammar school.
First time reader and commenter here. I agree with what I understand is your basic frustration. This is one reason I vote partly based on who appears to be the least likely to "just do something". Being wise enough to know when to NOT to anything, especially when it comes to governmental intrusion, goes a long way with me. Unfortunately my choices in this are usually relatively limited.
While I would be interested as well, politics is about winning, and these most assuredly work counter to that. While we might be better off if everyone was willing to adopt losing policies, they never will, so embrace the absurdism. Sometimes exaggeration is closer to the truth than reality by lifting our eyes to the horizon. Sometimes there really are net benefits to be had all around. It seems like politics is the definition of search, just on longer time scales. We will make those decisions together is the only system that has worked and likely the only one that can.
A system that spends the most is almost bound to spend more on innovation, both good and bad, and more innovation in one area can lead to less in others. Let us have more good and less bad and tell me how you will do this. Or not. I would rather win.
I have no argument with you. I just thought it was a film you may actually enjoy.
I know.
I think the conventional answer is that the opposition is supposed to point out the tradeoffs, potential for unintended consequences, etc.
And that works to some degree when there's effective opposition.
Many of the worst policy failures seem to originate in non-controversial "bipartisan" policies, where there was little or no effective opposition.
Moral panic issues seem particularly prone to this problem. I'm thinking of the drug war, FOSTA-SESTA, and maybe recently #metoo.
I do know of promising ideas to create better incentives for policy advocates. But I don't know how to make many care about those either.
Echoing @efalken, while I share your preferences, I don't see much incentive for policy change advocates to do as you ask.
Very few voters have time, patience, or interest to work thru the pro-and-con arguments for any given change. Policy advocates act as lawyers, making the best case they can for their preferred policy - that excludes discussion of tradeoffs, and admissions that their policy may not work as planned (and therefore needs monitoring).
More valuable would be an institutional mechanism creating incentives for policy advocates to behave better.
"More X for group G" can also be the sort of things for which there are tradeoffs.
Who is this "we" who " can’t get more of something good without also getting less of something else good.". While design flaws exist, most political conflicts are primarily "who-whom", e g. conflicts over which group gets to decide things. Considerations are presented as being about production possibility frontiers but connected insiders regard them as zero sum games between insiders.
Example: everyone knew for a long time that can medallion monopolies were socially harmful, but they provide a context for concentrating wealth among a politically meaningful group of insiders. The problem was solved, not by finding a Pareto improvement, but by finding a more connected and more concentrated group of insiders who were able to create a public benefit by taking a chunk out of those monopoly rents.
In the comments section of a blog, you should try to get to your point quickly. Asking someone to watch a 3hr video to understand your point is asking WAY too much.
As you know, most political discourse purposely avoids most of what I’ve asked for here. Advocates instead tend to frame each dispute as a simple and fundamental moral choice. Details are avoided, dangers are exaggerated, and tradeoffs, search, and learning are rarely unacknowledged as issues. Politicians refer to goals and avoid talking about difficulties of implementation, incentives, measurement, or learning.
This sounds like something my favorite filmmaker Adam Curtis, would make. Infact, he has an entire film titled, HyperNormalisation - A different experience of reality.
You should watch it & maybe write for us your review on what you think abou it :)
I'm happy to grant that radical change rarely looks like a good idea, except in smaller scale experiments which can informed potential larger ones.
That too, sure.
I share your preferences on this, but I don't think they have ever been the characteristic of someone who successfully implemented radical change, and thus anyone who emulates such persons.
Radical change is rarely good because it's easier to screw things up than make them better, however, sometimes it works (eg, slavery, democracy, a republican form of govt). Alas, everyone points to these exceptions as the rule and so argue for radical change that will elevate us just like, say, giving women the right to vote.
Further, radical changes are rarely diagnosed within a generation, as the initial implementers selectively present metrics that allow us to see what in hindsight is abject failure (eg, Khmer Rouge). A more mundane example is light rail, hailed as a great social good, helping the poor and the environment. In my town of Minneapolis it's disaster, hardly ever used by people going to work, doesn't cover it's marginal costs, but the local media and academics don't care to highlight any of this. Thus, the downside for anyone promoting radical change is pretty absent in their lifetimes, as others will have to pay for it, and by then one can point fingers at many things (eg, Democrats defend Obamacare only as a transition to socialized medicine, not how it's actually working, blaming anything but Obama).
Advocates for massive new programs are 'all-in', true believers, and know that bumps on the road must be censored to avoid backsliding. Anyone proposing radical change will violate all of your principles among others, and are perfectly fine with it. They have hope and faith that they will succeed and someday be in the pantheon of heroes kids learn about in grammar school.
I think if somebody followed all of your proposed steps, it would no longer be considered a "rant".
If this used to be a private choice, explain why private choices about this tend to go wrong.What about the reverse?