“If you raise the speed limit and, predictably, x additional traffic accidents will occur, the legislature is responsible for those accidents. This sounds harsh: you are causing accidents. But it would be insane to say law-makers bear no responsibility for costs, they only get to claim credit for benefits. The fair way to put it would be: the law-makers judge the accidents to be an acceptable cost of people getting to and fro faster. The law-makers share responsibility for the costs with those who vote for them, and support the measure, and take advantage of the convenience of faster driving.
In the gun case: the law-makers judge thousands of gun-related deaths (and the occasional, horrific school shooting) to be an acceptable cost of many, many more people enjoying gun-owning lifestyles. If they pretend they aren’t making this trade they are still responsible, since they ought to known better. They share this responsibility with those who support them.”
This is the fragmentation that happens as systems scale. Things like ‘responsibility’ and ‘guilty’ break apart more distinctly, and need to be detailed.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t fit into how many of our communications systems (read: social media) promote simple messaging through a dichotomy lens.
The polar opposites of expanding systems and society.
More: The first half of this article is relevant “Instead, we’re allowing the education conversation to be defined without enough nuance…”
More: Confidence at scale