The Wonkblog is, as far as I can tell, the only part of the Washington Post's editorial apparatus that actually shows any intelligence or nuance. Or any political opinions to the left of the John Birch Society. So that's something.
No, it's because everyone is a cook and everyone is given a right to express their opinion about the soup.
But expressing that opinion doesn't come for free, so only two types of people do it: the most dedicated, and the people who are at least wealthy enough that they have income to spend on it.
That said, there's two types of politically-dedicated people. Some people are both types, but some are only one type or the other.
There's the issue-based activists. These people get into politics because they care deeply about an issue.
Then, more rarely, there's the horse-race analysts. These are in it because the numbers games are fun.
People who are into politics but not due to wealth tend to be mostly issue activists. Some of those issue activists are also horse-race analysts, but a good number of them don't like the horse-race stuff, usually because they perceive it as diluting the cause they're championing.
Then you get a few people like me, who are much more attached to the horse-race analysis than the issue activism. I do issue activism...but only to a much lesser extent than the usual issue activist does.
(By "horse-race" I mean looking at the numbers, like poll numbers, who's who, topline results, incumbents and challengers and primaries and dark horses, fundraising figures, focus lists from the various party campaigns, who's firing positive or negative ads at whom, candidate spending vs. third-party spending, etc..)
I find it horribly funny that, whether it's the President of the Free World or President of the Student Council, elections eventually devolve into popularity contests.
I feel that democracy's inherently flawed because, generally, humans don't know what's best for them. Even if it was possible for us to all be fully informed about the issues (and, considering that each news station has a different set of info, there's really no such thing as being fully informed), our emotions would probably screw us up regardless.
I've always been in favor of a form of technocracy, myself.
I mean, I know that technocracy's non-viable because we can't assess the technical ability of a person on an objective scale (if we did, well, we wouldn't really need government), but I like the idea of policies being written by experts, based on what's scientifically necessary at the moment. Does the scientific community generally agree that global warming is a thing? Then we make policies that cut down on fossil fuels and whatnot.
Basically, I'd like laws to be based on what's needed and necessary instead of what's requested by the fallible populace.
The problem with that is, of course, that certain disciplines are still dominated by fashion and ideology despite being treated as "sciences." The most egregious example would be economics, whose "fads" have resulted in policies that have bankrupted countries and ended countless innocent lives. Although I do agree that playing it by ear and focusing on necessity with respect to policy is better than simply caving to mass demand, the biases of a few empowered individuals could be devastating in their impact, thus spoiling the point of the system.
Oh, yeah, economics and other, well, soft sciences, would have to be regulated.
Man, I don't like using soft sciences as a bad thing, but sociological ideas and economic ideas would need to go through more checks before touching policy.
I mean, I know that technocracy's non-viable because we can't assess the technical ability of a person on an objective scale (if we did, well, we wouldn't really need government), but I like the idea of policies being written by experts, based on what's scientifically necessary at the moment. Does the scientific community generally agree that global warming is a thing? Then we make policies that cut down on fossil fuels and whatnot.
Basically, I'd like laws to be based on what's needed and necessary instead of what's requested by the fallible populace.
this completely ignores the fact that even the most hardnosed scientists are people with biases and opinions too.
you'd end up with a scientist-run version of the Republic of Venice.
Okay, they're a benevolent race of all-knowing, impartial beings who have transcended the biases of mortality and have no need to quote that one line from the Hamlet speech. You can't possibly argue that they'd be an improvement on the current Congress.
Okay, they're a benevolent race of all-knowing, impartial beings who have transcended the biases of mortality and have no need to quote that one line from the Hamlet speech. You can't possibly argue that they'd be an improvement on the current Congress.
Benevolent meaning, in this case, devoted to the betterment of both humanity as a whole and humanity as individuals. Freedom would be slightly decreased, as human freedom can lead to terrible mistakes, but the overlords would be devoted to creating high standards of living, fostering education, and generally allowing humans to enjoy their lives and thrive.
Benevolent meaning, in this case, devoted to the betterment of both humanity as a whole and humanity as individuals. Freedom would be slightly decreased, as human freedom can lead to terrible mistakes, but the overlords would be devoted to creating high standards of living, fostering education, and generally allowing humans to enjoy their lives and thrive.
Benevolent meaning, in this case, devoted to the betterment of both humanity as a whole and humanity as individuals. Freedom would be slightly decreased, as human freedom can lead to terrible mistakes, but the overlords would be devoted to creating high standards of living, fostering education, and generally allowing humans to enjoy their lives and thrive.
I think that you undervalue the ability to make mistakes. It is, after all, an essential part of the learning process. There should be no shame in making mistakes so long as they are learned from, at least on a small scale. Shame comes into ply when the mistake is never acknowledged, and thus never learned from.
Trial and error is still important. It's not like these theoretical cow overlords have complete control over actions. Humans would still make mistakes and, under the principles of Beccaria and his successors, prisons will be made in a way that corrects those mistakes and encourages humans to do better.
The Wonkblog is, as far as I can tell, the only part of the Washington Post's editorial apparatus that actually shows any intelligence or nuance. Or any political opinions to the left of the John Birch Society. So that's something.
Confused the Post with the Times here for some reason, the former being a perfectly fine paper of record with the occasional wack article and an excellent politics blog and the latter being the mouthpiece of the Unification Church. Very unfortunate.
Comments
But expressing that opinion doesn't come for free, so only two types of people do it: the most dedicated, and the people who are at least wealthy enough that they have income to spend on it.
There's the issue-based activists. These people get into politics because they care deeply about an issue.
Then, more rarely, there's the horse-race analysts. These are in it because the numbers games are fun.
People who are into politics but not due to wealth tend to be mostly issue activists. Some of those issue activists are also horse-race analysts, but a good number of them don't like the horse-race stuff, usually because they perceive it as diluting the cause they're championing.
Then you get a few people like me, who are much more attached to the horse-race analysis than the issue activism. I do issue activism...but only to a much lesser extent than the usual issue activist does.
(By "horse-race" I mean looking at the numbers, like poll numbers, who's who, topline results, incumbents and challengers and primaries and dark horses, fundraising figures, focus lists from the various party campaigns, who's firing positive or negative ads at whom, candidate spending vs. third-party spending, etc..)
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I feel that democracy's inherently flawed because, generally, humans don't know what's best for them. Even if it was possible for us to all be fully informed about the issues (and, considering that each news station has a different set of info, there's really no such thing as being fully informed), our emotions would probably screw us up regardless.
I've always been in favor of a form of technocracy, myself.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Basically, I'd like laws to be based on what's needed and necessary instead of what's requested by the fallible populace.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Man, I don't like using soft sciences as a bad thing, but sociological ideas and economic ideas would need to go through more checks before touching policy.
this completely ignores the fact that even the most hardnosed scientists are people with biases and opinions too.
you'd end up with a scientist-run version of the Republic of Venice.
THIS PHRASE MAKES ME WANT TO EAT SHOES AND PUNCH THINGSAssassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I'm still putting it down as "Favorite Sci-fi Utopia".
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
OK.
Well, you've come up with a perfect hypothetical solution, I'll give you that.
Can some of the council members be spherical cows in vacuums?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Past Tre had his moments of stupidity, but I'll give him credit for paying no mind to the right things
Confused the Post with the Times here for some reason, the former being a perfectly fine paper of record with the occasional wack article and an excellent politics blog and the latter being the mouthpiece of the Unification Church. Very unfortunate.
Also:
Somehow I was even worse three years ago. If barely.
I can do it more if you'd like~