Why it’s so hard for government to fix social problems

people have a conception of a thing called a state so something I've written a lot about is the unicorn conception of the state so imagine that I have a mass transit proposal and what we'll have is these large carts that are pulled by unicorns and unicorns are great for mass transit because they eat rainbows that is very strong and their flatulence smells like fresh strawberries so there's no emissions not know that pipe it's what there's no emissions problem that's not really great good object well I think there's a problem with this actually because unicorns don't really exist close your eyes you see one yeah so why they totally exist in the sense that I can imagine them that's how people think of the state when I say here's look the state is messing up well right because we have bad people all we need to do is get the right people because I can imagine a state that's doing these things it's very difficult to fight that so the argument that I try to make haven't given that caveat yeah that it's hard to fight unicorns because that's what people want is something they can imagine not something that exists but the argument that I actually try to make is that every flaw and consumers and there are many is worse in voters so you think consumers are too stupid to be able to choose what size Coke to buy mm-hmm or which car to buy voters have all those problems and more so my colleague Dan Ariely at Duke who writes about rationality and consumer problems and once the state to intervene there's no such thing as the state there's just people if we're going to have voters choose what these experts are going to make people do it'll be even worse than the market right so it's I so basically we are the flaw in the system in a really perverse way that the best system is one that recognizes that and doesn't try to do too much because if we give voters enough power they'll do what they did in the south and afflicts minorities they'll tell or they'll say no same-sex marriage there's no reason to think that if you take one person who's too stupid to make his own choices at the grocery store and put them together in that with an angry mother pick the right they can then choose a good president or a good Food and Drug Administration Oh

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. Both the government and the citizens of a country have responsibilities and obligations towards each other to serve the common good of all , that's why a government is not responsible for peoples social behavior in terms of morals , principles and ethics that is correct but at the same time a government is responsible for the necessities of which provides a fair and a decent living standard to everyone , because when a government fails to do so it shall hold the blame for social chaos because it was the government's responsibility from the get go to assure opportunity , progress , development , safety and social security , only when a government fulfills its objectives the society shall have the chance to overcome any cultural problems

  2. I think the reason why the government have a hard time with social issues is because they didn't plan to deal with this Soo quickly. What I'm to say is government assistance didn't wasn't always here like how it is today, like back then in the 1900 or so people really didn't rely on the government as the people either work or starve because government assistance was small then when the great depression was coming they had to throw things together and help people find jobs. Now fast forward to today government assistance is this large thing that certain groups take part of that then means there is soo many different reasons why the people need the assistance the government just cared about giving the money not about the people which then went into all social issues ya know now they don't really care about gay rights or how people treat minorities all they did was put a band-aid on but didn't heal the full wound.

    Tldr: because the government never thought about government assistance till the great depression that then made people dependent on the government they (the government) just gave up on careing about who gets the money, this mentality of not careing went into social issue like LGBT+ rights or other minorities problems all they did was get tired of dealing with people problems and just put band-aids over cracked bones aka amendments.

    Although I think there's more to it then what I know. For me it's just the lack of careing because it's overcomplicate to deal with each problem.

  3. This may be true, but it's not our current problem. Our political system functions as an oligarchy, not a democracy. Most of the bad decisions that are made are for the benefit of the elite special interests. This is a fact.

  4. back in the 60's imagining a device with a screen that can be used to make calls, take pictures, browse the internet was easier than creating one. If we have a theory of the state that is easy to imagine but hard to apply it doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve, we can work harder as humans to achieve societies that are more just, fair and more free. A perfect government doesn't exist, yet..

  5. With any form of power, we must limit their capacity to do good because in so doing we restrict their ability to do evil.

  6. Nobody should ban same sex marriage.. They should ban the concept of legal marriage in general, get the state out of personal relationships altogether.

  7. It is interesting to me that he brings up that voter will choose "no same sex marriage". They did…numerous times. The courts overturned in, but up until recently, every time same-sex marriage was on the ballot…even in California, it was rejected by the people.

    So why is that interesting? Because these same people who want "the state" to give them what they want, also want to use the power of the courts to overturn what they don't want. So they are willing to go to the ballot box and vote as long as they get to win, but if they don't, the throw a hissie fit.

    Now, before I get a lot of hate…note that I'm talking about facts about what has happened, not expressing an opinion here. If you want my opinion, it is to wonder why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place. If the state wants to create legal arrangements for people to share tax burdens and legal benefits, they can do that without using marriage as that standard. If the excuse for using marriage is that it provides the best environment most likely to provide stability for raising children and that benefits "the state", than same-sex marriage doesn't make sense as it goes against that premise. So either stop pretending that marriage is any business of the government or acknowledge the reason, but you cannot do both at the same time. I say get the state out of marriage. Every law that currently "triggers" on marriage should be re-written to trigger on a domestic partnership and then anyone who wants to get married is welcome to find whomever will provide such a ceremony to do so. Or, if they prefer no ceremony, anyone who wants to consider themselves married can likewise do so. But anyone, homosexual or hetrosexual, or simply cohabitating, who wants to share legal benefits, can likewise file for a domestic partnership and do that, completely separate from marriage.

  8. I am not sure why you think consumers do bad decisions and don't know how to chose! Consumers do the absolute BEST decision with de information available

  9. So I guess the military shouldn't exist. Or roads, bridges, fire fighters, teachers, driving schools, airports, or any other part of society that's maintained by those that are given tax payer dollars to educate a workforce and try to maintain a society…

    So does this mean that when a police officer murders someone, they aren't a representative of the state?

    How about when the military goes to war in another country and commits mass genocide? Syria? Yemen? Afghanistan? No answer?

    Oh, I guess the state doesn't exist so holding a murderer accountable in a jail is not possible.

    Yeah, that theory seems suspicious as all hell.

Related Post