I just think he doesn't go nearly far enough.
Daalder takes aim at a bunch of weird beliefs that Maureen Pugh has expressed. Doesn't get climate change despite clear scientific consensus. Weird on pharmaceuticals and alternative medicines.
Both of those are well out of line with scientific consensus.
But if we abandon the idea that crazy and ignorant people also need to be represented in Parliament and start setting entry tests on this stuff, well, I have a few proposals.
First up, any MP that can't pass intermediate micro isn't qualified. Give a basic tax incidence question, see if they follow the consensus of economists. If they don't, kick them out. Same if they think rent control is a good idea - there's a very clear expert consensus on this one.
Next, rules on genetic modification. Clear scientific consensus that GM crops are safe. The rules against them do a lot of harm. We'd kick out most of the Green Party on this one, if any were left after the rent control question. And that could be fine. They'd be replaced by pro-science greens. Don't you like science? It would be better, right?
How about any MP who thinks that stadium and film subsidies provide net benefits? Both are in clear violation of the scientific consensus. We can retrospectively kick John Key out of Parliament. He loved stadium subsidies.
Kick out of Parliament, and out of the bureaus, anyone who demonstrates through their policy advocacy that they really really do not understand how an ETS with a binding cap works.
I really love this, so long as I get to be the one setting the science tests. Could be great fun. Might be risky if I'm not the one setting the tests though.
No comments:
Post a Comment