absolutely. in most markets, many approaches to solving a problem are tried. and when evidence that something works appears, more and more people try it and f

absolutely. in most markets, many approaches to solving a problem are tried. and when evidence that something works appears, more and more people try it and find it useful. but thats not how collective decision making works. you've got to convince a majority that something works. you need a campaign and evidence is often ignored in politics. ok, often is being generous I remember when Spanish speaking parents in California wanted their kids taught in English. Educators opposed it. It took a state wide vote to make the change. Parents couldn't simply select this approach for their child. And lo and behold, kids did better and educators were surprised. Its a simple matter for folks to make dozens of decisions every day about their kids, selecting from many competing options. How could some dumbed-down centralized decision making system working with a tiny fraction of the information and a tiny fraction of anything personal at stake possibly make a better decision? Its pure group think in my opinion.