The social engineering has got to stop. A free people should not be subject to the latest schemes of self-appointed masterminds. The most evident and dangerous venue for such engineering is the public schools, in which the government subjects our children to every sort of social experiment, and what have we to show for it?
Don't forget that the things that make the news have a huge selection bias.
First two to spring to mind: A dramatic drop in violent crime since the 1970s because the "self-appointed masterminds" restricted lead. A dramatic drop in road deaths because the "self-appointed masterminds" required seatbelts, airbags, and crash standards.
That regulators make mistakes, even fairly often, doesn't necessarily convince me my life would be better without them.
Your example about automobile safety devices makes the dubious assumption that manufacturers wouldn't include such technologies if not mandated by the state and that consumers wouldn't demand them. You also ignore the ridiculous amount of other required features on modern automobiles that make base models more and more expensive, hurting the lowest income levels.
There are many possible factors that went into this reduction in crime, but it's not entirely settled. For example, a substantial portion is attributable to a decrease in unwanted pregnancies [1].
1. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta...
I'm somewhat skeptical about that; while lead may be a contributor, there's fairly strong indication over a long period of time of age demographics being a key driver in crime rates, and the curve of the crime wave is fairly consistent with that, making an additional explanatory factor unnecessary.
Well my wife's (who's from a third-world and (formerly) most isolated country in the world) grandma (eldest of 13) explained it to me: She's always taken newborn's and placed them by the window for an hour. That'll do it!
Then I read the history of neonatal jaundice care and I was shocked to learn that light therapy for jaundice wasn't discovered until the 50s (when a doctor noticed that newborns under the care of a nurse with particular habits fared better) and widely practiced until the 70s!
+1 for folksy medicine!
Come on now.
> We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses.
Precisely the mindset of the power elite that gets us into so much trouble.
I lean toward valuing individual rights over all else, but this scenario does present a serious challenge to that worldview.
Another contributor to the problem is that people trust science a lot less today than 2 generations ago. They've seen the negative results of a lot of fraud that has been perpetuated under the banner of "science". (E.g. "scientific socialism", the food pyramid, most of psychology, etc...)
Could we be getting better at a faster rate, as a species? Most likely, but it's not like we've halted progress or something.
Totally agree. But are those improvements due to the decisions of central planners?
> What do you mean 'so much trouble'?
Things that come to mind: abysmal outcomes for many in the public school system; skyrocketing prices in healthcare; urban families almost completely destroyed by paternalistic welfare programs; massive suffering and death caused by the warfare state; shredding of the Bill of Rights by the TSA; economic calamity caused by Fed-fueled booms and busts; etc.
Look at the places with the worst outcomes and you will find the most government involvement.
Of course. That doesn't mean they are the problem. It's entirely plausible they are involved because there's a problem. In a system with honey, bees and bears, just because you often see bears involved with honey doesn't mean they are responsible for its creation.
LOL, really ? There are more and more obese people in the US, does that count as getting healthier ? What are your metrics exactly ?
As for living longer lives, that's already clearly proven most of the life expectancy gains happened since we reduced infant mortality to minimum levels, raising therefore lifetime for all individuals on average.
Exactly, that's why Freedom is to be left alone to individuals so that they can choose for themselves what best fits their lifestyle.
Governments have roles to play, but telling people what to do and not to do at a private level is certainly not one of them.
You don't think "freedom is the right to be wrong" wasn't something you were taught as a child by adults?
Or are you trying to suggest that your genetics have a role in determining what rights you have or who has power over you?
Usually governments make worse decisions than common folks - in about every area (economics, science, medicine, education). I can hardly think of any area where Governments actually did not divert funds resulting in a bad consequence.
The human body won't tell you to avoid lifelong tanning to avoid cancer in your 60s, because living to your 60s isn't all that evolutionarily important (and hell, likely made you a drain on your hunter-gatherer tribe). There's no selection pressure.
Apparently there are some arguments that having elders around was a boon for prehistoric tribes. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/24/prehistoric-m...
I don't know how much this is validated, but thought it was interesting nonetheless because it seems counter intuitive at first.
I'm somewhat doubtful of this claim. If anything scientists would have everyone avoid sunburn since skin cancer and cataracts.
Tans looking good are a recent phenomenon: A couple hundred years ago light skin was a sign of high status since you could afford to stay indoors instead of having to work in the fields, so light skin was deemed to be more beautiful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Social_status...
Really? This is a naturalistic fallacy. It's out precisely our instincts that cause us to overeat. As has been pointed out our instincts haven't adapted to the abundance and availability of food seen today. In an environment where food is scarce it is evolutionary advantageous to ensure your body had enough calories to make it until the next available meal. And this didn't mean picking the most nutritious food sources, we didn't have that luxury, it meant picking the most available. Only as directed by science do we now know what foods provide the most benefit or determent to our health.