Politics of human nature

[padren]

This is more of an interesting observation than a big topic, but when thinking of the realities libertarians see and that progressives see it strikes me that both really are complaining about the same thing: the indisputable erosive force of human nature:

 

When a libertarian goes into a private business to conduct their affairs, they are generally met with attentive helpful staff who you can tell just by talking to them are alert and well aware their job exists because they maintain a level of service able to complete with their competitors. They are to the point and don't waste time, and try to offer what will meet your needs while ensuring their own are met as well.

It's good ol human nature working in everyone's favor as a force that ensures quality, efficient service.

 

Then the libertarian goes down to the DMV, sees the long lines, the dull look in the employees' eyes as they plod along through their day with no sense of urgency. What little survival instinct is present is dedicated entirely to meeting a handful of bureaucratic metrics that are so confounded as to have no real world reflection on the quality of service they provide, and quickly ensure job security through seniority so they can meander through their day looking at every inefficiency like "well that's life" and accepting it.

 

I can see how this is frustrating: it's human nature - both situations are emergent based on their environments, and no amount of bureaucratic apparatuses can make the one into the other.

 

 

Then you have the progressives: watching the news as it becomes clear that BP was basically allowed to do as they please, since they had the most to loose if anything went wrong, they had the incentive to ensure things were safe.

And with the confidence of the MMR, they conducted operations and watched as each safety feature broke down one after another, all the time confident they could push ahead because as each one failed, it didn't matter because they had so many redundant systems they were effectively invulnerable.

First the seal ring that allows the testing of escape pressure was destroyed when someone "bumped the joystick" on the drill during a pressure test. Bits of rubber came up in the pipe confirming it was destroyed - but they had redundant systems.

Then one of the two blow-out preventers failed to respond, but they had two so it was safe to continue. On top of that there are procedures in capping the well by using the 'mud' that weighs enough to counteract the pressure of the oil.

Then lastly, they decide to forgo that and skip using the mud, because it would be faster and as always - they have an impenetrable array of safety features to prevent anything from going wrong, it's all costing money by the minute, and when it's done it'll be done and no one can complain.

 

Which results in a failed cap, blow back, failure to catch it because they have no means to run a pressure test, and a total failure in the blow-preventer that was already known to be less than 100%.

 

What upsets progressives so much: it was human nature. No matter how many safety features you layer on, it adds a false sense of confidence even as they fail because they are biased by the result they are under pressure to exact.

Without some regulation with real teeth, that ensures genuine penalties equivalent to being disbarred from the industry for conducting business as usual when even one backup system fails - people will be people and accidents will happen. When we deal with catastrophes where "once is too many" it's not enough to add just another layer on top and hope they are smart enough not to mess up next time.

 

The problem is just as insidious as it is with the inefficiencies libertarians highlight in government work - it's caused by human nature.

 

 

 

What I find most interesting, is that from my perspective libertarians and progressives are upset about the same thing - policy that fails to address the sheer unrelenting "seep through any crack" persistence that is human nature. Yet, both ideologies tend to be diametrically opposed in their views, because both are myopically concerned with different aspects of human nature, and overly optimistic about on the other.

The progressive thinks "non-competitive sloth" can be overcome with the right amount of red tape, and the libertarian thinks "overbearing overconfidence" can be overcome with the right amount of unregulated personal responsibility. Both are right to say the other is dead wrong.

 

I think in the long run though, to actually solve any of our contemporary problems we will have to stop compromising or overreaching, and construct a new view that encompasses the full range of human nature with a much more nuanced vocabulary and analysis, that builds a lattice of checks and balances as well as open channels for free market solutions.

 

 

Regardless of whether that's the case, isn't it fair to say that both ends of the spectrum are really trying to address the same concern - when the persistent erosive force of human nature creates constant deleterious effects in our society?

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, and where do conservatives fit in?

[padren]

Hm, and where do conservatives fit in?

 

Good question. I'd probably come across as condescendingly simplistic if I tried to assess the conservative take, mostly because conservatives make no frig'n sense to me.

But seriously, I don't really know. I am sure they have as much concern about human nature as anyone else, and may tend to overlap libertarian views in many ways but just less to the edge of the spectrum.

 

Honestly I'm not sure what conservatives stand for: During the Bush years it appeared to be a combination of libertarian style deregulation with a heavy centralized government and "big brother knows best, you all keep your heads down" mentality.

Since then mostly I've seen the tea party angle emerge but I still haven't made any sense out of what conservatives actually believe.

 

Sorry, wrong guy to ask about that I guess.