If we have parented young children, we don't either love them or admonish them to behave better -- we do both.
We don't drive cars with only brakes or gas pedals.
Why then, do we let people suggest that no government or totalitarianism are the only possible end states of political organization?
Why do we let people suggest that pure laissez faire capitalism or minutely planned central control are the only possible economic states we can live in?
When we label people as the 1 percent or as marxists, as tyrants or anarchists, as heartless or blindly naive, we are taking the lazy way out of understanding. It can be true both that people should get to keep what they earn (after paying for services) and that seeing generational and locally entrenched poverty tells us the free market system has failed in some way.
When we label people as the 1 percent or as marxists, as tyrants or anarchists, as heartless or blindly naive, we are taking the lazy way out of understanding. It can be true both that people should get to keep what they earn (after paying for services) and that seeing generational and locally entrenched poverty tells us the free market system has failed in some way.
It's common to see mathematical functions that have low values at either end of their range, and a peak somewhere in the middle of their range. We should expect that many real-world situations have the best outcomes when we choose a course that is between two extremes as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment