4 ms·
Human nature is hard to change. Systems are (relatively) easy to change. Rather than worry about people being irresponsible, lazy, greedy, immoral, incompetent,
by csallen 13y ago
Human nature is hard to change. Systems are (relatively) easy to change. Rather than worry about people being irresponsible, lazy, greedy, immoral, incompetent, etc, we should focus on building systems that work well and protect all involved despite all of that.
- avmich 13y agoAgree. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate officials - especially elected ones - on their views. Now, what could be a workable approach...
- walid 13y agoBut I don't think this is a workable task in a political system. The views of the guy you voted for are going to be different from the one you didn't vote for. In a perfect system every person will be impartial in evaluating elected officials. In the real world, if you evaluate the guy you DID NOT elect you would be perceived as being biased. On the other hand, if you evaluate the person you DID elect you would be perceived as being biased as well. Both cases you would be perceived as being biased. So the only workable approach is to focus less on individuals and more on the system and its results.
- avmich 13y agoVoting is the evaluation I'm talking about. Of course it's biased :) . Systems and results are surely quite important but we still have individuals in the picture, so we want to pay attention to them as well.
- walid 13y agoYou nailed it. What also changes is people in authoritarian posts. The system has to be resilient to the occasional wrong guy being chosen for a powerful post. Also it doesn't make sense to fight individuals since it gives a fake sense justice. If the system allows injustice then it is bound to happen and abundantly so.
- marcosdumay 13y agoA very important part of a system that works well is making sure that the people with the worse character flaws don't get into power positions, and that the people in power get punished when they display those character flaws. Or, in other words, stop blamming the system, and start making it work.
- dclowd9901 13y agoActually to parent's point, it's ensuring that even if the worst people got into positions of power, things would be structured enough and there'd be enough checks to keep them from doing any real damage.
- dragonwriter 13y agoThis is one of those things that sounds nice but is mostly self-contradictory (or, at least, requires magic) -- if there is something checking to prevent "the worst people" from doing real damage in "positions of power", then: 1) The positions you are atalking about really don't have all that much power, and 2) Assuming that the checks aren't magical external impersoal forces, the people doing the checking actually exert the real power.
- sdoering 13y agoThe problem is, that (at least today's) societies need some kind of immune system. As much as I liked the world to be without arms, I see the need for law enforcement. I see the need of a society for people making harsh decisions. Sometimes the utilitarian greater good needs the suffering of the few to come into existence. The problem is, when it is turned on its head, so that the greater majority suffers a little bit (financially, or otherwise) for the benefit of the smaller minority. And that is, what our current system of lobbying/economics/politics sadly seems designed to achieve.