3 ms·
Edit: I want to refine the above since this is ticking upward. I think there are certain problems that do require top-down coordination from everybody, and the
by brundolf 5y ago
Edit: I want to refine the above since this is ticking upward.
I think there are certain problems that do require top-down coordination from everybody, and there are certain moral issues that really are so fundamental they deserve to be enshrined in law. It's just that these days we tend to overestimate the size of these categories and target everything we think to be wrong with our society using this extremely large and imprecise "hammer". Many things, especially small and personal and compassionate and nuanced things, will simply be smashed instead of fixed. And people, in particular, have to improve from the inside out.
This (my part at least) also isn't a "government efficiency" argument, it's a "government precision" argument. Governments (and political factions, and corporations for that matter) cannot know things like morality; they can only respond to very imprecise signals sent to them by the populace. If you look to them as a personal north star, you will end up empty and broken inside. And as you look to them as levers of change, expect that everything they do will be at best a clunky, wide approximate of what you hope for. Factor that in when you set your expectations for which things they can and can't solve.
- spacemark 5y agoVery well put. Hans Rosling (RIP) in his book "Factfulness" talks about how the leaders of a nation or even the system of government make very little difference in the rising standard of living in a given country. What makes the difference is people getting up and going to work. Ie, incrementally and steadily improving what's actually in each of our spheres of control rather than losing our minds over celebrity politicians' latest tweets. As Epictetus said, "If you wish to improve, be content to appear clueless or stupid in extraneous matters." As true today as it was 2000 years ago.