Why vote for balance?

"The only difference between medicine and poison is dosage."

Why should we vote for balance instead of voting for our "side" in a winner takes all battle?

- because caring for the poor can devolve into mere resentment of the wealthy
- because depending too much on a meritocracy leaves too many people disenfranchised
- because too much reliance on free markets leads to manipulation of our cognitive frailties
- because too much power, even if its to my benefit, turns people into tyrants
- because too much free speech can allow violence to multiply
- because too much censorship marginalizes voices that need to be heard
- because too much government intervention is inefficient
- because relying too much on personal responsibility leaves people vulnerable
- because shared morality binds us but also blinds us
- because even if I "win" it doesn't benefit me to have a neighbour who is defeated.
- because equal results for unequal input seems unfair to those who are more productive
- because results based solely on input without considering circumstances seems unfair to those who were disadvantaged from the  beginning
- because even if I'm right most of the time I need an equal amount of people who disagree with me to make sure they can compensate for when I'm wrong
- because that antidote to cognitive biases is discussion with diverse opinions
- because my heaven might be your hell

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Restoring the heart of Te Fiti

What you SHOULD NOT learn from '13 Reasons Why'

Political Psychology Lesson #1 - The Dunning-Kruger Effect