I think that the problem is none of these political ideologies have much in the way of a theory of value, let alone a correct one, so the only choice people have is reactionary measures.
The main problem with doing that is the reaction is always towards isolated or small sub-groups of incidents, they have a massive problem of conformation bias, looking at the bigger picture seems to be something they either can't or won't do. It's realistically just post-hoc emotional responses and let's face it, they aren't exactly known for effectiveness, especially compared to a base methodology for determining value and consequence.
There has been a prime example of that in NZ at the moment with the deaths of 29 miners at Pike River, calls are being made for major chances to labor laws by some because they think there must necessarily be something more than could have been done to prevent the deaths (though the experience of the miners who worked there couldn't be further from that conclusion) - The reality is the labor laws for workplace safety are already at the point where making them more stringent would have a negative impact on the values of others in the general population as these laws would have to be applied to all industries, which would make one of NZ's largest and most dangerous industries, adventure tourism, effectively unable to operate - Not to mention dozens of other industries that would see costs rise and jobs decline, ultimately effecting everyone else far more so than the current balance of things.
This is the danger of reactionary policies, a failure to overcome that which caused the reaction. That is not to say that all reactionary measures are bad, it is to say that it would be almost certainly more effective to take the most effective theories of values in both ethics and economics and combine them in the way that brings the most value to the most people.
The main problem with doing that is the reaction is always towards isolated or small sub-groups of incidents, they have a massive problem of conformation bias, looking at the bigger picture seems to be something they either can't or won't do. It's realistically just post-hoc emotional responses and let's face it, they aren't exactly known for effectiveness, especially compared to a base methodology for determining value and consequence.
There has been a prime example of that in NZ at the moment with the deaths of 29 miners at Pike River, calls are being made for major chances to labor laws by some because they think there must necessarily be something more than could have been done to prevent the deaths (though the experience of the miners who worked there couldn't be further from that conclusion) - The reality is the labor laws for workplace safety are already at the point where making them more stringent would have a negative impact on the values of others in the general population as these laws would have to be applied to all industries, which would make one of NZ's largest and most dangerous industries, adventure tourism, effectively unable to operate - Not to mention dozens of other industries that would see costs rise and jobs decline, ultimately effecting everyone else far more so than the current balance of things.
This is the danger of reactionary policies, a failure to overcome that which caused the reaction. That is not to say that all reactionary measures are bad, it is to say that it would be almost certainly more effective to take the most effective theories of values in both ethics and economics and combine them in the way that brings the most value to the most people.
.
