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.

  • thumb
    Sep 9 2013: Brian, I would think life is kind of flexible in that you can get away from government to some degree just by going where there is less development, less of a city or suburb atmosphere, more of a rural one. If you went and lived in a cabin in the Ozarks, grew your own food, spun your own wool, the government wouldn't touch you too much, would they? Maybe government mostly is for people in cities and suburbs, more people together need more rules for getting along. I read that the cities mostly went for Obama in the most recent election, and the rural areas for Romney.
    • Sep 10 2013: It does seem to be true that the less developed an area is the less "policing" people have to abide by. New York City for example is highly developed and look at the amount of control the local government has: Stop and frisk, limit on sugary beverages.

      I agree that people do have flexibility with how much freedom they are granted in their life. To a degree.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.