Read on Twitter
When some kind of a bad situation exists, a lot of people respond with something akin to "we have to do something." I think that's an understandable response, but ultimately flawed. Instead, I generally ask three questions:
1. Is the situation bad enough to warrant some kind of a response?
2. Do the actions we have at our disposal have a good likelihood of improving the situation? On the other hand: what is the probability of making the situation worse?
3. Do we have the right to do this?
2. Do the actions we have at our disposal have a good likelihood of improving the situation? On the other hand: what is the probability of making the situation worse?
3. Do we have the right to do this?
When it comes to government intervention, (3) is oftentimes ignored these days. I think that's a pity, because some terrible mistakes and great atrocities have come from ignoring that.
But what really irks me is how often (2) is ignored. Almost everyone from any side of any political ideology can point to countless examples of where a government/group/individual has charged ahead with doing _something_ to catastrophic failure. But This Time Is Different.
The three questions are really a bit of a lie, since (1) is inherently based on (2). Even a small issue should be addressed if we know how to solve it. Even a terrible issue should be let alone if we'll only make it worse. But I find it useful for framing.
This mindset is not just for approaching political issues. I use it when making technology decisions, business decision, or personal/family decisions.
Prime example many people will recognize from me: in the 60s and 70s, multiple governments and organizations decided to "solve" the problem of rising heart disease. The intervention turned out to be catastrophic, and we are all far worse off for it.
This isn't an aspersion on anyone's character or intentions. I'll grant that in the majority of cases, the majority of people have only good intentions. But you know what they say about the road to hell.
