Worst-Case Scenarios

It's not always easy to imagine the results of a potential decision. 

But since it's human to think in terms of black and white, imagining a dystopian or utopian future isn't that difficult. By taking a decision to its logical extreme, we can get a sense of the potential consequences inherent in that choice--even if all of them don't show up for years, or never do.

This tool only works for very specifically worded questions. Consider the question "should we have a government with more power or less than its people?" By taking the two sides to their logical extremes, we create two scenarios:

1. The people have NO power and the government has ALL power.
2. The people have ALL power and the government has NO power.

Obviously, there are problems with the second situation: foreign powers could take advantage of the power vacuum, representation would be difficult, and the power might rest with the wrong sorts of people. But there's no contest as to which situation would be worse to be in: if the people had no power, 1984 wouldn't just be a compelling book. It would be a reality.

Another caveat with this tool is that it shouldn't be taken as the right course of action. Clearly, a balance of power is best. But humans don't do well with equal balances, so it's necessary to figure out which side is best to err on. We've just shown that it's better for the people to have more power, not that one side should have all.

Let's look at something that's more frequently debated: freedom of speech. Following the same process,

1. There is NO lawfully granted freedom of speech: there are very distinct things you cannot speak about, and there are acceptable and unacceptable positions to take on certain issues.
2. There is COMPLETE lawful freedom of speech: there is nothing you can't say.

Now, it's true that there are some benefits in the first case corresponding with drawbacks in the second. Speech is not always good; people can be hurt, lives can be negatively altered and jobs can be lost. The government may say one thing or another on free speech, but people always have and always will consider some things taboo.

But we're looking at worst case scenarios. So in the first, the Worst Possible Outcome is this:

people can say whatever hateful things they like about whomever they despise. Hate speech is lawfully protected and many minorities or out-groups are subjected to verbal harm.

And in the second:

the government watches to make sure everyone toes the line. Certain topics are "hot:" if someone dares to utter an opinion contrary to the official position, they are prosecuted with the full weight of the law. People have to be wary of what they say to whom; could this person be a government informant?

Another thing this tool can't do is decide for you what the best (or worst) outcome is. Chances are, people will have differing opinions on which logical extreme they'd prefer. But I trust most people fear the latter and merely dislike the former.

So, in our example we can determine that complete freedom of speech is better than none. And from that, we can say that mostly complete is better than almost none. And from that, more is better than less.

That's how the tool works. People may despise freedom of speech for the safety it gives to certain hate crimes, but there's no perfect balance of freedom and safety. Never is.

But when confronted with a choice for more or less freedom of speech, chances are more is better.