Its a standard truth in Business/Life that you don't get what you derserve, but rather you get what you negotiate. Isn't this obviously true in politics as well? And isn't the corollary also obviously true? If you're not at the negotiating table, you're screwed?
If it is true, what does this imply? It means that BBdM should be right, and the percentage of folks at the negotiating table should matter massively. Small proportions should mean that everyone else gets screwed.
Furthermore...I'm getting suspicious about whether we can make some variant of Dunbar's law and political accountability. Dunbar says: maximum size of a group that manages cohesion = 150? Maximum depth of political representation that preserves any interests of the people could be 3 levels. Combining Dunbar + 3 level accountability gives us: you can't maintain accountability very well past ~3.5M adults . Not too shocking, given that the best run states in the world are ALL small population countries. Hong Kong, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The obvious corollary is that you do get what you deserve: it is defined by what you negotiate.
If you don't deserve the consequences of your actions, what do you deserve?
Or: 'deserve' is extremely poorly understood, usually it is wielded as a bludgeon to rhetoric opponents to death.
Alrenous,
That's silly....
Clearly luck (or something statistically indistinguishable from luck) has a lot to do with everything.
Desert is an ethics-based response, having to do with human response to the social world.
Consequences are a feature of reality. The two are barely related.
Post a Comment