4 ms·
NIMBY is just one kind of activist. We live in the age of the "tyranny of the tiny minority" where a small number of passionate people have their already-loud
by efitz 4y ago
NIMBY is just one kind of activist. We live in the age of the "tyranny of the tiny minority" where a small number of passionate people have their already-loud voices so amplified by the media that they drown out everything else. Social media tends to make extremes go viral, and traditional media looks for controversy and amplifies it.
Nuanced messaging and debate is a thing of the past. It doesn't fit in tweets and sound bites. Now, if you disagree with me, easier for me just to say you're evil than try to rebut your points. And this in turn feeds the media amplification effect. Who has the most emotionally compelling narrative? Who can parade out the most horrifying pictures? It doesn't matter if they're from a completely unrelated incident two years ago (and were staged), or that the "victims" are paid activists.
"Politician" is now a career. This means perverse incentives for such people; instead of ONLY considering what is best for constituents. They must also think about getting reelected.
Bureaucracies and government careers make decision-makers risk-averse, and most people react to having to make risky decisions by wanting more study before deciding. So the politicians and the bureaucrats only have up-side to accepting delays (they would call it "listening to constituents"), and suffer a huge risk of down-side if they green-light something that ticks off some noisy NIMBY or activist. And they rarely have the skill set or incentives to write contracts that result in the best outcomes.
The article talks about the perverse incentives associated with unions; these are only made worse with public sector unions.
Finally, our courts don't have loser pays and no longer are "speedy" by any reasonable definition. So you can tie things up for years with an activist lawyer on your staff, and make your opponent spend millions in legal fees to respond to all your noise. Plus, if you get lucky with a jury of people who don't understand the science of your issues and just buy the narrative, then you can win really big.
We need a lot of reforms in our republic. Most of them center around removing perverse incentives and externalities.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIMO the problem is that "politician" is a career. Now the municipal government is just one rung on the ladder, and the worst thing is not getting elected (getting fired). There is no incentive for career politicians to do anything other than what will help in the next election cycle. Politics used to be a hobby for the already successful who wanted to give back. These people were bound by a sense of what was right. Elitist as hell, yes, but at least they weren't trying to climb the corporate ladder.
- nybble41 4y agoCrazy suggestion: Bar politicians from owning property or having any income (including gifts of goods or services) apart from the stipend for their appointed position. For life. Everything owned beforehand has to be given away as a condition of holding political office. They can retain a small allotment of personal items officially owned by the government but left in their care for their own personal use. No stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or any other investments. A pension for retirement is included, of course, provided they manage to avoid being convicted of any malfeasance during their tenure. See how many career politicians you get under those conditions.
- krapp 4y agoLiterally no one would ever seek public office for any reason, at any level, if it meant losing everything they own and any ability to own property or gain income apart from a presumably meager stipend for the rest of their lives (so definitely no young politicians with fresh ideas) and then lose their retirement if (I assume, given the tone of this premise) they get so much as a parking ticket. I know Americans hate politicians but we treat mass murderers better than that. We definitely treat billionaires who are far more corrupt and have far more power than most politicians better than that. Why not go full Thomas Jefferson as well and just hang all the politicians every 20 years?
- nybble41 4y agoNo one with a profit motive would be interested, which is the whole idea. You'd get idealists and people seeking to make a name for themselves instead. (I'm not saying this is a perfect system BTW. I even called it a "crazy suggestion".) > I know Americans hate politicians but we treat mass murderers better than that. The point is not to punish politicians but rather to ensure that there can be no conflicts of interest, or at least none rooted in a quest for material gain. > if (I assume, given the tone of this premise) they get so much as a parking ticket. "Malfeasance" goes a bit beyond parking tickets. What I had in mind was more along the lines of bribery or corruption, not simple mistakes.