3 ms·

There is always politics in public policy. Science tells you what the consequences of your actions might be, it doesn't tell you anything about the desirability

There is always politics in public policy. Science tells you what the consequences of your actions might be, it doesn't tell you anything about the desirability of those consequences. If your goal is to eradicate a virus, science tells you the correct policy choice is to ban all interpersonal interaction for several months, stop all transportation, and put locks on everybody's doors so they can't leave their houses.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> ban all interpersonal interaction for several months, stop all transportation, and put locks on everybody's doors so they can't leave their houses But then everybody starves to death. And anything less won't actually eradicate the virus, as we've seen.
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Science can tell you how to get a physical result, but when you're making public policy, human happiness and morality matter just as much, and happiness and morality are political. Policy makers need to balance the countable mathematical goals with the uncountable moral and political goals, and Hume's Guillotine tells us there is no calculus that can tell you the right balance.
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  I can go for 70 days without any food and I have a good 40 days supply at home. If we did something like this or what China did in the first place, it would've died out. Relying on individual responsibility inexorably leads to a Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can never be trusted.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Neither can governments, apparently.
fallingknife 5y ago
So as an organization, the CDC should not set policy. They should present analysis and projections, and answer questions from congress. Then you let congress decide based on that. This is why the CBO has been able to maintain its neutral expert reputation. They don't say "we recommend this bill," they say "if you pass bill x, we project that it will have the following impact on the budget."

commandlinefan 5y ago

> ban all interpersonal interaction for several months, stop all transportation, and put locks on everybody's doors so they can't leave their houses But then everybody starves to death. And anything less won't actually eradicate the virus, as we've seen.

hannasanarion 5y ago
Yeah, exactly. Science can tell you how to get a physical result, but when you're making public policy, human happiness and morality matter just as much, and happiness and morality are political. Policy makers need to balance the countable mathematical goals with the uncountable moral and political goals, and Hume's Guillotine tells us there is no calculus that can tell you the right balance.
doggodaddo78 5y ago
I can go for 70 days without any food and I have a good 40 days supply at home. If we did something like this or what China did in the first place, it would've died out. Relying on individual responsibility inexorably leads to a Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can never be trusted.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Neither can governments, apparently.

fallingknife 5y ago

So as an organization, the CDC should not set policy. They should present analysis and projections, and answer questions from congress. Then you let congress decide based on that. This is why the CBO has been able to maintain its neutral expert reputation. They don't say "we recommend this bill," they say "if you pass bill x, we project that it will have the following impact on the budget."