4 ms·
I would argue this claim is empirically false. > and if they're wrong the majority will undo it as the majority will feel the effects. This assumes the majori
by jonahx 6y ago
I would argue this claim is empirically false.
> and if they're wrong the majority will undo it as the majority will feel the effects.
This assumes the majority will correctly identify the root cause. Whereas, in fact, they cannot do this even in simple cases, let alone a case where the root cause was an innocuous-seeming policy enacted 10+ years ago. Especially while the current politicians du jour are providing dramatic, simple, alternative narratives of the cause to suit their own goals.
- endisneigh 6y ago> This assumes the majority will correctly identify the root cause. Whereas, in fact, they cannot do this even in simple cases, let alone a case where the root cause was an innocuous-seeming policy enacted 10+ years ago. Especially while the current politicians du jour are providing dramatic, simple, alternative narratives of the cause to suit their own goals. I agree, but it's still no worse (and in practice much better) than trying to let the minority figure it out, whom are no more likely to figure out the root cause either. We can probably agree that governance is complicated though.
- jonahx 6y ago> We can probably agree that governance is complicated though. Yes. I don't think there is an obviously correct solution either way. I'm really only arguing that "trust the majority" is not something I trust. Not that "trust experts" is without its own (possibly equally fraught) set of problems.