3 ms·

> Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts. Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to

> Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts. Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. Given that crappy politics can happen with and without term limits, I get suspicious when anyone claims enacting or removing limits would solve problems.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. The idea that people that are experts in none of the relevant domains can effectively synthesize the advice of experts in economics, labor relations, law, and other relevant domains to legislative effectively even on the first-order (much less second- and third-order) effects of policy is amusing. Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions?
- manquer 6y ago
  Corporate Management is somewhat similar ? You don't necessarily get managers or CEOs who have no expertise of biz under them. The idea in theory being they need to always manage many areas they don't understand very well it does not make that much of difference if they don't understand all the areas provided they can manage well. Infact having expertise in any one area may influence your decisions where you are more comfortable with, rather than what is required .
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions? From personal experience: I've interviewed at (and received offers from) companies that wanted to hire SWEs without any experience in their specialist area (be it graphics, avionics, hardware control, etc) because they wanted people "who could bring new ideas" or "who won't be encumbered by old-school thinking". Though the implication is that those new-hires would grow-into an expert role over time, rather than never being an expert at all.
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  Maybe the point of having legislators is to make decisions that improve people’s lives, and so maybe you need someone whose primary loyalty is to the people (or at least, to the people that vote) to synthesize the advice of the experts? Or to put it another way, maybe you need an expert in figuring out what the public wants to synthesize the advice of the other experts?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Maybe the point of having legislators is to make decisions that improve people’s lives, and so maybe you need someone whose primary loyalty is to the people (or at least, to the people that vote) to synthesize the advice of the experts? Loyalty and expertise are orthogonal, and loyalty without expertise is fruitless. Good intentions are insufficient for good results. > Or to put it another way, maybe you need an expert in figuring out what the public wants to synthesize the advice of the other experts? Sure, “understanding the public interest” is one of the domains of expertise involved in public policy (whether it's the most critical for politicians to have personally as decision makers might be debatable, it's certainly not one in which they are typically undersupplied with advisors whose notional role is providing expertise; indeed, these usually, for legislators, significantly outnumber advisers with any other even notional domain of expertise other than law and dealing with other legislators.)

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. The idea that people that are experts in none of the relevant domains can effectively synthesize the advice of experts in economics, labor relations, law, and other relevant domains to legislative effectively even on the first-order (much less second- and third-order) effects of policy is amusing. Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions?

manquer 6y ago
Corporate Management is somewhat similar ? You don't necessarily get managers or CEOs who have no expertise of biz under them. The idea in theory being they need to always manage many areas they don't understand very well it does not make that much of difference if they don't understand all the areas provided they can manage well. Infact having expertise in any one area may influence your decisions where you are more comfortable with, rather than what is required .
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions? From personal experience: I've interviewed at (and received offers from) companies that wanted to hire SWEs without any experience in their specialist area (be it graphics, avionics, hardware control, etc) because they wanted people "who could bring new ideas" or "who won't be encumbered by old-school thinking". Though the implication is that those new-hires would grow-into an expert role over time, rather than never being an expert at all.
ghufran_syed 6y ago
Maybe the point of having legislators is to make decisions that improve people’s lives, and so maybe you need someone whose primary loyalty is to the people (or at least, to the people that vote) to synthesize the advice of the experts? Or to put it another way, maybe you need an expert in figuring out what the public wants to synthesize the advice of the other experts?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Maybe the point of having legislators is to make decisions that improve people’s lives, and so maybe you need someone whose primary loyalty is to the people (or at least, to the people that vote) to synthesize the advice of the experts? Loyalty and expertise are orthogonal, and loyalty without expertise is fruitless. Good intentions are insufficient for good results. > Or to put it another way, maybe you need an expert in figuring out what the public wants to synthesize the advice of the other experts? Sure, “understanding the public interest” is one of the domains of expertise involved in public policy (whether it's the most critical for politicians to have personally as decision makers might be debatable, it's certainly not one in which they are typically undersupplied with advisors whose notional role is providing expertise; indeed, these usually, for legislators, significantly outnumber advisers with any other even notional domain of expertise other than law and dealing with other legislators.)