Thomas Sowell constantly points this out in all his writings. The 'anointed', as he calls the self-important intellectual class, live in a world of think tanks that create policies that ultimately fail but never suffer any consequences. The whole notion that society is a fault for criminal behavior is a failed social policy with the working and middle classes suffering the consequences while the anointed in their gated communities believe we just haven't applied the criminal as the victim hard enough.
My first instinct is that this is a very bad idea that will make politicians hyper-meddlesome. They'll want to plan your meals and decide how much you can drink. The nanny state safetyism would be off the charts. Better to have some kind of penalty for underperformance or violations.
I think a better fix would be to only allow property owners to vote. They are the ones who truly have “skin in the game” since they pay the bulk of the taxes. Politicians will fall in line if they have to answer to property owners only.
Counterargument: People give worse advice to their loved ones than they would to a stranger. The most obvious example is moms telling other people's kids it's okay to go into the trades, but demanding that their own children go to university. In my experience, this generalizes: people have clearer ideas about things they don't care about.
Just a shift of perspective, it shifts the blind spots too, not necessarily to a better place, just a different place. It's not necessary for the politician to have an external perspective, to receive the insights that can come with it (this is how consultants make their money, after all).
Bring back dueling.
Yes.
Particularly actual skin.
Need to require disclosure by family members (e.g., Pelosi) as well.
Thomas Sowell constantly points this out in all his writings. The 'anointed', as he calls the self-important intellectual class, live in a world of think tanks that create policies that ultimately fail but never suffer any consequences. The whole notion that society is a fault for criminal behavior is a failed social policy with the working and middle classes suffering the consequences while the anointed in their gated communities believe we just haven't applied the criminal as the victim hard enough.
My first instinct is that this is a very bad idea that will make politicians hyper-meddlesome. They'll want to plan your meals and decide how much you can drink. The nanny state safetyism would be off the charts. Better to have some kind of penalty for underperformance or violations.
I think a better fix would be to only allow property owners to vote. They are the ones who truly have “skin in the game” since they pay the bulk of the taxes. Politicians will fall in line if they have to answer to property owners only.
Counterargument: People give worse advice to their loved ones than they would to a stranger. The most obvious example is moms telling other people's kids it's okay to go into the trades, but demanding that their own children go to university. In my experience, this generalizes: people have clearer ideas about things they don't care about.
Just a shift of perspective, it shifts the blind spots too, not necessarily to a better place, just a different place. It's not necessary for the politician to have an external perspective, to receive the insights that can come with it (this is how consultants make their money, after all).
Generally, book reviews of these one-idea books are better than the book itself, which is full of fluff and taboo-dodging.
Would enjoy seeing most American Sun posts in this vein.