3 ms·
I like this description, but one thing bothers me about the last part with multiple people. The end product is acceptable to everyone since they might have had
by mhb 6y ago
I like this description, but one thing bothers me about the last part with multiple people. The end product is acceptable to everyone since they might have had a chance to veto some aspect and didn't. When adding a new piece, you would need to consider whether it would have been unacceptable to any of the people. That doesn't necessarily seem easier than taking something out.
- jjk166 6y agoIf you add something, you need to convince N people that it's acceptable. To remove something, you must convince N people not only that it is acceptable, but that it is preferable to removing any of the other options. It may be easy to convince most people that a farm subsidy is doing more harm than good, but it's hard to convince the farmers that there aren't any other subsidies that could be cut instead.
- mhb 6y agoYour example creates an asymmetry where there isn't necessarily one. To make the situations comparable, if you're adding something, you should have to convince the N people that there are no better things to add. The same as your suggestion that they would need to accept that the removal of a particular thing is preferable to all other possible things that could be removed. In fact, it seems easier to remove something since there are only the things that people have already agreed on. To add something it could be compared to a world of possibilities which might be better.