3 ms·

> There's too much to know about too many things in this world, and of the important things that people should know, this is pretty low on the list. It's up to

> There's too much to know about too many things in this world, and of the important things that people should know, this is pretty low on the list. It's up to the professionals (ie. us) to make decisions on behalf of those who can't ... Agreed. That also is what government is for, to protect citizens from abuse and dangers, via regulation. Banks and automobile companies can't sell fraudulent or dangerous products to everyday consumers, for example.

dhimes 10y ago
I think this is so far beyond what your average professional politician is capable of understanding that it is hopeless. Their only choice is to believe the loudest voice.
- easuter 10y ago
  The guy does have a point, yet is bring downvoted into oblivion. Government can play a role in the improvement in the everyday life of it's citizens. As an example, I pay 25 euros/month for 200mbps fibre internet thanks to my government's antitrust laws. How are you doing on this front, Americans?
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Their only choice is to believe the loudest voice. Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise. We all retain experts, one way or another, to research and report on the technical details, and our analysis isn't at all limited to the loudest voice. Governments regulate airplane safety, but the politicians aren't aeronautical engineers and pilots. It doesn't just regulate but operates entire militaries, soup-to-nuts, with incredibly advanced technology, complex situations, and high stakes, yet it is civilians who are in charge (in the U.S. and most advanced countries) - the likely next U.S. Secretary of Defense will be the first ex-military officer since 1951.
  - dhimes 10y ago
    Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise That's not the same. It's one thing to have advisors, it's another to be so far out of your league that it's not even debatable nor discussable for you. So you try (ideally) to put people in their best positions to make the best decisions, and hope you have critically thoughtful people. But at some point they don't even know what questions to ask any more. Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point. These bad decisions come about because the interested parties have access "loudest voice" and can spin the conversation. Such has always been the case, but now we are getting to an age where a preponderance of decisions require some sort of technical understanding. I'm certain sometime in our past the leaders went from being the ones who could yell the scariest to the ones who could write. In this age we will be better served, IMHO, if we require our leaders to have some numeracy and some technical literacy.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point. I disagree with these claims. Ironically, do you know anything about them, or are you repeating what has been said with the 'loudest voices'? For example, I actually do know a little about the F-35, which I assume you are referring to, and though there are reasons to criticize it most in the U.S. military (and in others) desperately want it. Also, what about other things I mentioned such as airplane safety? Food safety? Public health? These are unqualified successes, though of course flawed. Problems and flaws are the nature of every human enterprise and institution; there is no solution that won't result in them. But we still accomplish a heck of a lot. Sure, more numeracy and technical literacy would be great, but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation - it's just someone yelling loudly.
      - 10y ago

dhimes 10y ago

I think this is so far beyond what your average professional politician is capable of understanding that it is hopeless. Their only choice is to believe the loudest voice.

easuter 10y ago
The guy does have a point, yet is bring downvoted into oblivion. Government can play a role in the improvement in the everyday life of it's citizens. As an example, I pay 25 euros/month for 200mbps fibre internet thanks to my government's antitrust laws. How are you doing on this front, Americans?
hackuser 10y ago
> Their only choice is to believe the loudest voice. Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise. We all retain experts, one way or another, to research and report on the technical details, and our analysis isn't at all limited to the loudest voice. Governments regulate airplane safety, but the politicians aren't aeronautical engineers and pilots. It doesn't just regulate but operates entire militaries, soup-to-nuts, with incredibly advanced technology, complex situations, and high stakes, yet it is civilians who are in charge (in the U.S. and most advanced countries) - the likely next U.S. Secretary of Defense will be the first ex-military officer since 1951.
- dhimes 10y ago
  Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise That's not the same. It's one thing to have advisors, it's another to be so far out of your league that it's not even debatable nor discussable for you. So you try (ideally) to put people in their best positions to make the best decisions, and hope you have critically thoughtful people. But at some point they don't even know what questions to ask any more. Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point. These bad decisions come about because the interested parties have access "loudest voice" and can spin the conversation. Such has always been the case, but now we are getting to an age where a preponderance of decisions require some sort of technical understanding. I'm certain sometime in our past the leaders went from being the ones who could yell the scariest to the ones who could write. In this age we will be better served, IMHO, if we require our leaders to have some numeracy and some technical literacy.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point. I disagree with these claims. Ironically, do you know anything about them, or are you repeating what has been said with the 'loudest voices'? For example, I actually do know a little about the F-35, which I assume you are referring to, and though there are reasons to criticize it most in the U.S. military (and in others) desperately want it. Also, what about other things I mentioned such as airplane safety? Food safety? Public health? These are unqualified successes, though of course flawed. Problems and flaws are the nature of every human enterprise and institution; there is no solution that won't result in them. But we still accomplish a heck of a lot. Sure, more numeracy and technical literacy would be great, but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation - it's just someone yelling loudly.
    - 10y ago