3 ms·
The players within a game can be acting in a way they find distasteful, but which is nonetheless required of them by the rules. Students can be compelled to che
by leot 15y ago
The players within a game can be acting in a way they find distasteful, but which is nonetheless required of them by the rules. Students can be compelled to cheat if they perceive that it is widespread. Professors inflate their grades so their students are not disadvantaged upon graduation. Journalists "dumb down" their writing in order to better compete. Cyclists take dangerous drugs in order to stand a chance of winning against others they believe to be doing so as well.
In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage.
It's my personal opinion that most people in D.C. are fundamentally smart and good-hearted. Unfortunately, the euphemisms of spin constitute their thought processes. This, organized by the corrupting influence of money, has led in aggregate to delusion and dependency.
Rules-changing legislation is, hopefully, possible -- though perhaps only after beltway-types can be freed from self-deception.
- davekinkead 15y ago'In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage.' That, sadly, is why I am so pessimistic about political change via the current advocacy model. Tragedy of the common's type situations can often be avoided if enough players can agree to a some convention or code of behaviour. The problem with special interest in politics is that even if every politician could agree that the current way the game is played is destructive, special interest would actively work against reform. Change under the current system is reliant on the altruism of those in power to limit that power.
- shasta 15y agoI don't think change is impossible in our current system of government. The idea just needs to spread that reform is more important than how that reform is perceived to affect any pet political issue, because it will improve the outcome of every other issue. I don't sense much momentum behind that meme, though.