Scientific goverment

A decisionmaker may make decision x, thinking it will produce effect X, Nature. cats its vote -- nature decrees that decision produces effect Y, totally different and possibly quite undesirable.

The problem here could be described as a disconect between the model the descison maker is using and the relevant reality.

It doesn't matter if the decision makers in question are dictators, monarchs, an oligarchy, a democracy or a group of clowns standing on their heads. In principal, any of these could make decisons that have the expected effect or not (though if the clowns make good decisions, it might be surprising, since I doubt they would have much attention to put to the task). In general, it is more likely to make a decision that produces the desired outcome if the mental model behind it is sufficiently accurate.

A case in point is the discussion on the health care reform which is being proposed. Krugman makes a cogent argument why it is needed, which makes sense. Other people just say "This would cost money" and want it to fail:

The much-feared Obama healthcare initiative seems to be stalled. Markets are relieved, because this initiative, as it was presented, amounted to a huge transfer payment that would be funded by future tax increases.

Personally, I think Krugman is making all kinds of sense and is right (leaving aside Malthus). However, my point here is that Krugman has a meaningful economic model he is using, while David Kotok seems to be parroting the conservative line, which seems to basically consist of "we don't like it, so it is bad".

I am coming to the conclusion that we would be far better off being governed by some kind of scientific process, one that in effect, consults the natural world on the effect of decisions rather than prejudice and preference only.

Questions of value are not answerable by scientific processes, these must continue to be decided by people. However, the question of how to implement policies that produce the outcomes that are valued can meaningfully have scientific inputs, which if followed have a hope of leaving we the people better off.

Scientific models can only go so far and they are of limited accuracy, of course. However, with research and feedback they can be improved.