Last week, we discussed how not to be stupid when you’re trying to help people. It all has to do with being informed about what others actually need.
This week, we’re going to scale things up a bit. Misinformation can be just as harmful to sociopolitical issues as it can be for day-to-day encounters.
Informed Action in Sociopolitical Issues
We’re going to make this simple to start off. Take any of the current sociopolitical arguments you see on social media these days. Then ask yourself this question: do the people you disagree with on that issue seem to be lacking some amount of knowledge about it?
Odds are, you believe they do. You’d probably be right too. But it’s also true that you don’t know everything yourself. How do you know that you’re not missing something as well?
Even supposing that you are right about the fundamentals of the issue, how do you know that such-and-such law is the best solution for it? Just because it proposes to deal with the issue doesn’t mean that it actually will. Many laws just throw money at stuff, all without any real improvement.
A Bad Example – Education
For instance, people have been throwing money at education for decades. So many students are struggling with basic math, we have far more illiterate kids than we should have, and yet increasing taxes often doesn’t seem to actually change anything. In many cases, the reason for this is the extra funds are used on unimportant projects or to increase the pay of administrators, not to attract better teachers or to cut down on class sizes. Millions are spent on high school football fields and uniforms, all while administrators levy for additional funding.
The problem in that case is not lack of funding, but poor allocation of funds already available. Therefore, such-and-such tax levy may not actually resolve whatever problem the school system claims it will solve.
That’s just an example, of course, and it doesn’t necessarily apply to all school systems. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate that if people aren’t aware of all the facts, they are likely to opt for something that doesn’t really help, all while believing it’s “for the children” or whatever.
Another Example – Prohibition
At the very least, an ineffectual policy tends to blithely throw money at a problem in the hopes that it will go away. However, it can get a lot worse than that. The wrong policy can actually be quite damaging.
A classic example (and one that probably won’t rile up political extremists these days) is prohibition. The government decided that alcoholic beverages were no longer legal to manufacture, transport, or sell, all for the purpose of preventing alcohol consumption and the host of ills that result from it.
The end result was simply that people found creative ways to keep making and selling liquor. Illegal trade of alcoholic beverages led to a variety of problems, including health issues from shoddy black-market liquors, declines in business profits (especially for restaurants), and even lower tax revenue since many states taxed alcoholic beverages heavily.
Prohibition had a harsh impact on the economy, all without solving any of the problems that alcohol consumption has on society.
Now, was it wrong to try to do something to solve those problems? No. It was simply the wrong policy, and it ended up backfiring.
Disagreeing on Policy
We tend to look at prohibition-era America and laugh a little to ourselves (perhaps because we remember that one Simpsons episode about it). However, when we look at the kinds of policies that people propose today, everyone seems dead certain that they’re in the right.
Perhaps because of that, they’re all dead wrong.
That’s not to say that one person’s ideas have better odds of achieving positive results than another’s might. But the belief that you are going to be exactly and completely right on the way to resolve an issue just because your proposed solution aligns with your moral compass is, frankly, a little unsettling.
What is even more unsettling (and, dare I say, absolutely infuriating) is the tendency to assume that those who disagree with your proposed policy disagree with the purpose behind it.
A shining (and recent) example is medical marijuana. Many parties are in favor of it, and many others are against it. Those in Utah and Idaho are likely aware that one party who most people likely assumed was against it is actually (at least sort of) for it – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That said, the Church opposed a proposition that would have legalized medical marijuana. Why? Because the proposition went about it in a way that could prove detrimental. Their opposition to the policy doesn’t mean they are against medical marijuana entirely. It just means the policy itself wouldn’t have been the best way to legalize it.
The Hard Lesson
The hope is that these examples show how important it is to be informed about issues and the policies people propose to solve them. Additionally, we should all be more discerning when it comes to our disagreements with others. The reasons why someone opposes a policy we support are typically far more valid than, “they hate this group of people,” or “they’re against happiness.”
In essence, the ultimate takeaway is this:
Don’t be an idiot.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree? Do you think I’m the idiot here? Let me know in the comments! Also, if you’d like to access additional content, you can support The Astral Wanderer on Patreon. All proceeds go toward establishing a school system that runs not on money, but on the hot air extracted from the whispers of the stars. Really.