|
Politics has always infuriated me, as it seems to be largely based on ideology and intuition, rather than evidence. Example - in the UK, there are certain conditions you have to meet in order to claim unemployment benefit. If you fail to turn up at the job centre, or an appointed interview, you can have your payments temporarily stopped. To those that implemented it, it prevents people from perpetually remaining on welfare, because they get punished for not finding work. To it's opponents, it's self defeating in that taking money away makes it harder to make appointments, leads to hunger, depression, homelessness, etc. Neither position is evidence based. But why is this, when it would be fairly easy to study whether or not benefit sanctions are working? Why does the government get to ignore any evidence contrary to their ideas? Why do they not welcome evidence and alter policy based on it? Evidence based policy to me would seem like the adult way to go. Take Obamacare as an example of it's application. Bizarrely unpopular, but all evidence was that the US health care system was hugely unequal, and that it needed to be closer modeled on more successful implementations in other countries. Evidence is independent of the childish political pantomime that seems to be gripping the US at the moment. It reduces the role of government to a body that carries out studies and implements change to benefit people, rather than to fit some political ideology.
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:While this post is all very beep boop stemlord sounding logic, the administrative state in America generally does focus on collecting evidence and analyzing it before implementing a policy because of the requirements of the APA and various executive orders that have accumulated over the years. OK, but I'm talking about removing ideology from government. Bush still banned stem cell research, based essentially on religious reasons. Gun control is still a huge issue, despite it being hugely successful in most developed countries (I'm not sniping, I'm just trying to think of examples where the US difers from other countries based on ideology rather than evidence). I also realise that it's not always possible to govern on evidence. The question 'evidence of what' has to be asked. Evidence that your step towards the free market ideal is going to work? And it fails to deal with changes in demographic and population growth, because ways of dealing with that have never been tried before. I'm just more and more aghast at the political squables of the day. Arguments that could have an objectively correct side, that remain arguments because politicians and the people they serve are stubborn. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 07:30
|
|