The Government and Pied Piper Policies

Are we victims or are we getting what we asked for?

“The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything.” — Albert Einstein

How is our government supposed to work? If we read the Constitution (or carefully listen to our best political orators), it comes down to that our government should be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Anyone paying attention knows that this is not happening. Why is that?

It’s been said that we get the government that we deserve. More specifically we get the government we ask for and allow. (BTW, “government” here means local, state and/or federal “representatives,” including government agencies — the bureaucracy.)

When the government enacts a policy, they know that they have to put forward some justification for it. Right off the bat we encounter deception, as the pretext claimed is usually not the real reasons they are enacting some policy, but rather are fabrications designed to make their actions appear to be politically palatable. Very different things!

Before concocting their justification, they are keenly aware that:

  1. Most citizens don’t have the ability to do critical thinking. This is no accident, as that is a primary objective of our K-12 education system: to produce citizens who toe the line and are willing to comply with whatever is currently politically correct.
  2. Most citizens have a favorable view of Science — but at the same time, few of them understand what Science actually is. This allows the government to get away with claiming that its policies are “Science-based” even though that is not true.
  3. Most citizens are not paying attention. They have a busy life and their everyday affairs consume almost all of their bandwidth.
  4. Most citizens believe that there is nothing they can do anyway about government policies — so why waste time trying to change things?
  5. Most citizens don’t understand how policies come about, so even if they have the desire, they don’t really comprehend how to fix a problematic political situation.
  6. Many citizens are trusting souls. For example, when the CDC says that masks are essential for COVID-19, these citizens believe that the CDC must have solid Scientific Evidence before they would take such a public position. This is often not true — as in this example — so the government frequently abuses this trust.

What this all says is that (without some of the above being fixed — e.g., starting to teach critical thinking in K-12 schools), the government can put forward almost any nonsensical justification, and it will be accepted by most citizens.

So what are the most common justifications for technical government policies?

  1. Scientific Evidence. This is actually a rarity, but is what should be the case for EVERY technical policy. How do we know when the evidence we are presented with, is genuinely Scientific? It must meet four key Standards: a) Comprehensive, b) Objective, c) Transparent, and d) Empirical. (See more here and here.)
  2. Fake Evidence. This is evidence that fails to meet one or more of the four Science Standards. For example, the government tells citizens that we need more wind energy to meaningfully address climate change. That fails all four Standards!
  3. Tradition. In other words, something like “This is the way we’ve always done it.” Of course “always” is not true, as there had to be a starting point. Let’s say that the starting point was fifty years ago. Was there Scientific Evidence at that time? If so, is it still valid now that we know much more than we did then? If there wasn’t Scientific Evidence then, what sense does it make to continue doing it?
  4. Consensus. This supposed agreement among experts is the most common argument put forward by the government (think climate change, Covid, etc.). At least three thoughts come to mind: a) Who is considered an expert? [Is it only those who agree with the government policy?], b) Is there truly such a consensus? [Has an appropriate poll of all qualified parties been actually done?], and c) Isn’t Scientific Evidence the basis for each of these experts for their opinion? [If YES, then skip the consensus claim and present the Scientific Evidence. If NO, then why should we listen to such so-called experts?]

In other words, the only way to have technical policies that are genuinely for the benefit of the public, is if they are based on Scientific Evidence.

The results of doing otherwise (unscientific technical policies) are 100% Guaranteed:

  1. The COSTS will be significantly higher than projected,
  2. The BENEFITS will be much lower than promised, and
  3. The negative UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will likely be huge.

Citizens still do have power here, but the bottom line is this:

The route to being a Player is to start Critical Thinking, and then as many of the other six points made above.

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *