Imagine a future society in which everything is perfectly logical.
…but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence… employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing…
First, experts usually don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that — through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true — mislead us and misinterpret information… And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It’s striking how easily we forget the evil that following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realize that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence”.
Some accurate comments from others:
“First stop politicizing science, then give me a call.” — Mr D from 63
“Maybe [science has no business telling people how to live], but it would still be better than allowing religion or money telling people how to live.” — anonymous coward (Slashdot term for anonymous commenter)
My comment there:
Scientific conclusions can be (and too often are) unethically skewed (i.e. the term science is too often abused), but the scientific method itself is a nice and simple certainty incapable of being corrupted (i.e. fully meeting the demands of that method only becomes purely agreeable results without possible exception) – one that must be powerfully leveraged to remove (inclusively intentional) confusion from language to form concrete law (instead of the muddy mess passing for law these days).
Without objectivity, there is no fairness, so (by definition) no justice.
The fundamental problem is objectively defining harm.
In a purely energetic reality (e.g. this one, at least according to mainstream physics), harm is subjective, so impossible to objectively define.
The solution required by any society with an unalienable right to liberty is harm must be maximally conclusively (never suggestively, or such) defined in strictest accordance with the scientific method. Murder, assault, theft, and slander clearly fall into the category of harm as such, but holding a plant (e.g. cannabis) in your hand does not (among thousands of other prohibitionary examples to “regulate” society by mass rights infringement).
Tragedy is demonstrably inherent within our always-pros-and-cons reality (e.g. each one of us eventually dies, regardless of how the rule-of-law is structured), so regulations (euphemism for prohibitions) can only serve to determine the targets of tragedy, and you can probably easily conclude which group of people have better odds of not being those targets – the oligarchy (spanning the private and public sectors) controlling the regulations.
Scientific constitutionalism is genuine power for the people, because the certain and simple social construct that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty – the condition of being free from restriction or control – is limited only by the right itself) logically simply prevents the ratification of corrupt laws (when the public is righteously taught to maturely passionately care about that critical right enough to publicly defend it properly – which should not be too challenging of a task upon considering the undeniable popularity of liberty).
The only other option is yet another sick flavor of ‘we can trust our rulers to define liberty according to their subjective – e.g. weakly “scientific” – conclusions’ and all of the elitist-sourced abuses from favoritism that inevitably creeps and spreads out against too many generations of people vulnerable to that selfish elitist manipulation of law – allowing the unbearably dumb cycle of oppression repeat until death does humanity part.
In short, scientific constitutionalism majorly includes bringing certainty to language, so law – and leverages the anchor certainty (one that cannot be undermined) that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. balanced liberty) for optimal liberty within a civilized society.
One prime example of such language improvement is forming a hard-line distinction between use and abuse. Use is always a harmless action, while abuse is always a harmful action. Use disorder, being used (i.e. taken advantage of), misuse (redundancy of abuse), and so one would be logically deprecated by language experts for clearer (i.e. better) communication. That negates (for solid example) the mass destructive ability by ‘certain drug’ prohibitionists to unethically swap use and abuse merely to their convenience to (likely intentionally) confuse the public to ironically support drug prohibition addiction (sanctioned thugs lying and effectively stealing billions annually from taxpayers to get their prohibition fix without even resulting in a “drug free” prison system, nor one shred of concrete, so credible, evidence proving we live in even a slightly more “drug free” America).
A lot more detail exists in the Liberty Shield informational roots [libertyshield.us] that I meticulously and fully logically authored (and often refine while appreciating rationally constructive input), because I never want to be a part of an idealistic movement leveraged for selfish elitist gain “to protect the children”.