On Fighting Tyranny, (Well Not Really, But I Needed A Catchy Title)

Dakota War College has posted on government abuse of free enterprise here and here.  I know that lemonade stands are key to the economy.  In 2011, they may become what apple sales were to 1932.

I'm much more concerned about assaults on freedom of expression like this one: "Miniskirt-Wearing Cyclist Pulled Over by NYPD"

The facts of the case seem to indicate that this situation should unite liberals and conservatives as much as the federal budget deficit divides them. First, conservatives should be upset that the government seems to be intervening in the workplace.

Dutch bicycle company manager Jasmijn Rijcken claims she was beating the heat in a miniskirt on May 3 when she was pulled over by the NYPD for flashing a "disturbing" amount of skin, the New York Daily News reports.

It seems to make good business sense for a manager of bicycle company to ride a bike.  Why are the police destroying free enterprise?

Law and order types should be outraged that this lawbreaker who was engaged in activities described as"very disturbing," "distracting," and "dangerous" was was "let go without receiving a ticket."  Such leniency leads to societal anarchy.

Liberals should be upset that this woman is objectified as "a leggy blonde."  In addition, the woman is being forced to accept socially determined gender constructs that will demand she face dangerous situations like "having maxidress caught in a bike spoke."  Further, the corporate state is using its police power to attack green technology represented by bicyclists.

Where's the outrage?  Where's the Tea Party?  Where's MoveOn.org?  The foot of oppression is at all of our throats.

Of course it's possible that the people involved in either these situations were having a bad day and acting out of ignorance rather than malice, but that that wouldn't let bloggers make absurd points.  What's the fun in that?

Why Political Problems Resist Common Sense Solutions

Duncan Watts concludes,

As it turns out, the key is common sense itself. Common sense is exquisitely adapted to handling the kind of complexity that arises in everyday situations, such as how to behave at work versus in front of your children versus in the pub with your mates. And because it works so well in these situations, we're inclined to trust it.

But situations involving corporations, cultures, markets, nations and global institutions exhibit a very different kind of complexity. Large-scale social problems necessarily involve anticipating or managing the behaviour of many individuals in diverse contexts over extended periods of time. Under these circumstances, the ability that Lazarsfeld highlighted of common sense to rationalise equally one behaviour and also its opposite causes us to commit all manner of prediction errors.

Yet because of the way we learn from experiences - even ones that are never repeated - the failings of common sense reasoning are rarely apparent to us. Rather, they manifest simply as "things we didn't know at the time" but which seem obvious in hindsight.

The paradox of common sense, then, is that even as it helps us make sense of the world, it can actively undermine our ability to understand it.

In short, common sense works in common situations but not in complex ones.  It also seems that common sense plays into people's preconceived notions in a way that makes people more stubborn.  In that way common sense may be part of the fabric that allows people to resist facts as Chris Mooney has documented.

Duncan's analysis indicates that one should be as skeptical of appeals to common sense as one is of facts used outside of context.