TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why don't we try a grand social experiment?

Everyone has a different idea of what the laws should be, some even claim their way of living is the best. So my question is why not have a grand social experiment and let government be run on a very local scale. I think the most interesting findings would be how those fare that choose a large intrusive government versus those that choose to live under a small limited government.

It seems silly to me that civilization has been around for thousands of years and the scientific method for hundreds but people still can't agree on how to live. It's about time we stop relying on majority opinion or some so-called prophet to decide the best way to live.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 5 2013: No. You mis read or didn't read entirely. My idea is to encourage diversity so that over time experimentation tells us how certain laws fare for the population. Obviously there is always going to be diversity with matters like gay rights or religion and state. And some people will choose radical lives but what I am saying is that diverstiy will produce statistics about how different societies fare thus giving an overall view of what works best.
    • thumb
      Sep 5 2013: But wouldn't it make sense for different ways of living to work best for different people?
      • Sep 5 2013: Yes.

        Here's a scenario. A group of people maybe the size of half a million vote to have a very limited government. Another group of a half a million want a watchdog government that offers more services and more taxes.
        Say thousands more groups like this did the same with small tweaks based on regional preferences. On the grand scale could we make some conclusions about what works best. I think so. Basically I'm advocating for broader State rights on an even smaller scale than a State.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.