Saturday, February 6, 2010

Well said

The way to solve problems is not by electing the right people, rather it is to make sure the wrong people have incentives to do the right thing. Sadly, this is something that Democracy (and our Republic) is not able to do thanks to rational ignorance and numerous other problems.

Even more sadly, meta-solutions that may fix the process are unlikely to take place.

This is why I believe that efforts to unseat incumbents are doomed from the start. I'd be thrilled if I were proven wrong, but I won't be. :-(


HoCoRising said...

We know the efforts to unseat incumbents will be hard, but that's what makes it fun. I would love to have you in the conversation over in my neck of the woods, Freemarket.

Freemarket said...

Hard, yes, but that's not my objection. My objection is that unseating incumbents will be ineffective even if it succeeds. Meta-problems require meta-solutions. Simply bringing new faces into the same broken process is not a meta-solution.

HoCoRising said...

One of the "meta-problems" is a system based off of seniority that rejects new ideas to old problems. While I agree that a blind effort to unseat incumbents based off of the plain fact that they are incumbents is unlikely to promote any goals, I think the idea of a "reset" could force "meta-solutions" into consideration, simply for lack of resistance. I think making a blanket statement that unseating incumbents will be "ineffective" says little more than arguing that unseating incumbents will be "effective."

Freemarket said...

I don't think that bring new faces to the table is a "reset". It's more like looking for your lost keys near a streetlight only because the light is better there, not because that is where you lost your keys. But again, I'll be thrilled to be proven wrong.