3 ms·
I don't find it completely implausible that some people with influence in the lawmaking process (whether it be congresspeople, their advisors, or interest group
by mwhite 12y ago
I don't find it completely implausible that some people with influence in the lawmaking process (whether it be congresspeople, their advisors, or interest groups) have the historical knowledge and analytical ability to develop a perspective like Michael's.
Why should one assume that the actual reasons behind a policy are the same as the stated ones?
Even more, if these facts about the effects of the policy are true and important, then whether or not they comprise a large part of why anyone wants or says they want the policy isn't even that relevant.
- nostrademons 12y agoYou shouldn't assume that the actual reasons behind a policy are the same as the stated ones. You also shouldn't assume that the reasons that some random guy on the Internet gives for the policy are the real ones. This is the big problem with believing in conspiracy theories: yes, you are being lied to by people in power. You are also being lied to by people not in power. They are being lied to by the people whose actions they use to build the theories that they espouse to everyone else. Eventually, you realize that the only course of action that keeps you sane is to realize that society is built upon lies and misdirection, and it doesn't matter. We make the best inferences we can with the data we have available to us. And if we're wrong - well, so is everybody else, so the goal is just to be a bit less wrong than everyone else. Usually you get there by discounting everyone else's analyses and listening to their data and personal experiences only.