Tweet
This is primarily focused on regulation, rather than legislation, but I found it very helpful as we think about whether and how government can make net positive decisions for the welfare of constituents in a climate of such extreme ideological polarization.
Here's a pull quote, but worth reading the whole interview with Cass Sunstein in the link:
Here's a pull quote, but worth reading the whole interview with Cass Sunstein in the link:
If you could show that a certain approach to, let’s say, motor vehicle safety would save 700 lives annually and cost $8,000, it wouldn’t matter what your values are, if you’re sane. That’s a pretty good thing to do.
Suppose you could show that an approach favored by environmental groups would cost $60 billion and only modestly contribute to public health. It would be very hard, even if you’re a very fervent progressive, to think that’s a good idea.
On many of the issues that divide us, whether that’s clean water or endangered species or workplace safety, if we get clear on the facts, the value disagreement starts to seem uninteresting.
Suppose you could show that an approach favored by environmental groups would cost $60 billion and only modestly contribute to public health. It would be very hard, even if you’re a very fervent progressive, to think that’s a good idea.
On many of the issues that divide us, whether that’s clean water or endangered species or workplace safety, if we get clear on the facts, the value disagreement starts to seem uninteresting.
Comment