I think a much better solution to the general problem is: design and implement mechanisms, don’t elect politicians / lobby for rules / argue with people. Analyzing a mechanism doesn’t seem to be a mind-killer anywhere near as much as discussing outcomes. For example, it’s much easier to talk rationally about prediction markets as methods for information aggregation than to talk about what the results of their predictions would be.
For example, two people might have opposite opinions on global warming, one thinking it will be slower than the IPCC says, one thinking it will be faster. Yet they could agree based on a rational analysis that prediction markets will be more accurate than giant global committees like the IPCC, while each expecting the market to validate their view. Contemplation of abstract mechanisms doesn’t invoke tribal politics. At least, until the mechanism has started spitting out answers...
I can’t agree with this idea. The point of government IS to come up with solutions to potential problems (other governments, crime, paying for “public goods”, expanding the freedom of the individual pledging loyalty to the government, protection from the “state of nature”), through a variety of tools, including coercion. The government exist not in and of itself, but exist to produce certain “outcomes” which will favor or harm specific interests.
If we can’t talk about what a future government is actually going to do, then what’s the point of changing to it?
I think a much better solution to the general problem is: design and implement mechanisms, don’t elect politicians / lobby for rules / argue with people. Analyzing a mechanism doesn’t seem to be a mind-killer anywhere near as much as discussing outcomes. For example, it’s much easier to talk rationally about prediction markets as methods for information aggregation than to talk about what the results of their predictions would be.
For example, two people might have opposite opinions on global warming, one thinking it will be slower than the IPCC says, one thinking it will be faster. Yet they could agree based on a rational analysis that prediction markets will be more accurate than giant global committees like the IPCC, while each expecting the market to validate their view. Contemplation of abstract mechanisms doesn’t invoke tribal politics. At least, until the mechanism has started spitting out answers...
I can’t agree with this idea. The point of government IS to come up with solutions to potential problems (other governments, crime, paying for “public goods”, expanding the freedom of the individual pledging loyalty to the government, protection from the “state of nature”), through a variety of tools, including coercion. The government exist not in and of itself, but exist to produce certain “outcomes” which will favor or harm specific interests.
If we can’t talk about what a future government is actually going to do, then what’s the point of changing to it?