Why do I keep seeing this formula?
1. Points out a problem that is fundamentally rooted in human psychology.
2. Proposes that the solution is to have the government take it over.
1. Points out a problem that is fundamentally rooted in human psychology.
2. Proposes that the solution is to have the government take it over.
More seriously, all problems are rooted in human psychology because technology is now good enough for us to live in a utopia if we could only manage to stop turning it against ourselves. So, really that pattern is just proposing that the government take something over, you get the first step for free.
I'm more inclined to agree with the aphorism that government is the problem, not the solution.
Well, that and Goodhart’s Law.
We need government precisely because humans are not angels. We need someone to restrain human tendencies toward violence, toward fraud, and so on.
But as you point out, the government isn't composed of angels, either. So we need the government to restrain the people, but we also need to restrain the government.
As society grows more integrated and specialized you need to tackle the fundamental problems in human psychology.
Only things that seem to have work long term are forms, rules, procedures, formalities, .. in other words, mechanism or algorithm. Market economy, private property, democracy, decision making, law and order, all of these are just mechanisms that try to squeeze peoples behaviour and interactions into forms that work.
So yes, government is a big part of making it work.
Benefits include level playing field, transparency, accountability, recourse thru a fair & impartial court system.
Sadly, regulatory capture remains an unsolved problem, necessitating constant vigilance.
The problem is very well known. Without any proposed soluation, the article would be very uninteresting.
Maybe the idea is designing an efficient bureaucracy that prevents the agents acting within it from corrupting it.
I think making clear the mutual benefits of eudaemonia is a way we can progress towards more equality.
The problem is that insurance products you can buy don't cover that risk (and people have to rely on other dodges to keep their premiums reasonable, like insurance pooling) — and that's market failure.
That's a BS solution, you don't shop around when you need emergency medial treatment, because you're in the middle of a medical emergency. You might not even be conscious.
And lets say you're a weirdo who spent hours researching ahead of time, chose the "best" ER, and etched your choice onto one of those medical alert bracelets. That does you no good when you're away from home, or even just across town.
Yeah, there are certain cases where market-based healthcare reforms could probably do a lot of good (especially around outpatient and elective stuff), but "the market" and "letting the market work" are not the solution to all problems.
Hence the only question about global warming is how to cut CO2 emissions, and almost nothing on things like how to mitigate it effectively using science (like we did with everything else that was threatening us, from hunger to infections).