Two big social experiments of huge significance

One of the great virtues of the USA is that individual states have a great deal of autonomy over large swathes of policy-making, and can effectively conduct experiments that the rest of us can watch.  Could be viewed as an extension of ‘fail fast, fail cheaply’ capitalism that confers those systematic advantages that so bewilder socialists and statists all over – because of course when they take an action, it’s because they are right - and there’ll be no going back or letting empirical failure get in the way of determined execution of the policy. 

If that’s the hardened mindset, then the warnings of conservatives like Burke and Johnson against making changes without serious proof of benefit, are doubly appropriate.  What are we to make of the two ultra-significant social experiments about to be kicked off?

Australia’s move to ban under-16s from having social meejah accounts is perhaps in the ‘US states experimental’ category.  A relatively small western country, with representative social concerns, is trying something prima facie of enormous difficulty but with clear social ramifications.  Perhaps it’s so implausible they’ll succeed as to make it all a bit hypothetical (I don’t recall the illegality of underage drinking stopping me buying a pint in a pub at the age of 16**).  What if it has a genuine impact?  FB et al sure as hell don’t want to trip up complacently on this one, and have it sweep the rest of the world.  How will they react: ultra-cooperative? dismissive?  faux-cooperative?  Go Australia!, I say: let us know how you get on. 

Here at home we have the looming Assisted Dying Act as the Bill goes into further stages.  What have people made of ‘experiments’ etc elsewhere?  To hear the Bill’s sponsors, they’ve thought of everything.  But here’s an interesting article on the Oregon ‘precedent’, which shows how what we might call “legal interpretation creep” is an ever-present possibility.  We also know that some proponents of euthanasia have every intention of broadening the scope at the first opportunity.  Why couldn’t the Act be for a trial period of, say, 5 years with a sunset clause?

I’m sure there are many wise thoughts out there on both issues (Kev has already contributed on the second), which I hereby solicit BTL.

ND

____________

** I’ll bet many of you have the same experience.  The principle in those days was: “Lads gotta learn how to handle their drink & take their turn at bar billiards quietly in the corner“.