Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U.

Planning, Correction, and AccommodationNote how many complex systems have evolved. The Wright Brothers had no conception of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but we got there through evolving the design. When a bad feature is added to an airplane, it's relatively obvious that something is made worse rather than better. Government failures are not so obvious because imposed high-level solutions often suppress any competing solutions by making them illegal. If someone had managed to make metal airplanes illegal, we would have never seen the virtues of that approach. The way to improve government is therefore not to try to impose radical solutions, but rather to work to provide alternatives whereby failed approaches can be recognized. Libertarians, for example, should work to set up private sector alternatives that can then be shown to work better than government. A basic strategy is to move problems from the Federal level to the States, where solutions can evolve.Con has not addressed my basic framework for reform. C1. "Identity"Con argues that "When a radical great change happens many people will race to see what it is and how it will work in the system." Indeed they will, but that doesn't mean the change is good. Radical changes most often come from nutcases: religious fanatics imposing Sharia law; revolutionaries demolishing basic human rights; or dictators seizing the seizing the army, the courts, and the schools. People certainly what to find out what happened, but that's not good. If the change were accomplished democratically, there would be much less of a surprise, but also changes better adapted to the needs of the people while preserving human rights.Con argues that radical change helps people find their place in the world. Con cites two self-help blogs that are promoting radical changes in lifestyle like giving up smoking or starting a personal fitness program. Even at that, the message is not to seek too much change at once. The difference between a radical personal change and a radical change in society is that the person has a complete choice of what change to make. He is the only voter in his change, and he suffers or benefits accordingly. Radical changes in society involve imposing the change upon unwilling participants. Society has more complex issues to resolve, especially concerning the rights of dissenters.Con implies that many people will fall in line with the radical regime and feel more integral to society when they do. that's the charm of Occupy Wall Street, Hitler Youth, and Jihad. The radicalized minority is fulfilled, but at the expense of the non-radical majority. Perhaps the radical regime will achieve a majority, but if it does so, it achieves it's majority by subjugating the rest of the population. C2. "It's preferred"Con argues that most people now want radical change. Con's only reference for this claim says that changes are being forced by the housing collapse, lack of jobs, and Boomers needing to continue support Gen X. These are radical changes that are not desired or welcomed. I think that because radical changes are being forced, that people are seeking radical solutions. That notion is completely contradicted by President Obama being re-elected on promises of present government policies being continued. Say what you will of Mitt Romney, he was not close to being a radical. Voters, I think surprisingly, rejected any change in course despite a very bad economy that features the forces cited in Con's reference.Con claims there are a surprising number of anarchists and people in extreme Parties. that depends upon what is "surprising." I searched the web and could not find any data on how many anarchists there are in the U.S. An extremely generous estimate would be 0.1% of the number of voters. [1. http://www.revleft.com...;] That's not an endorsement for radical change or evidence that radical change is preferred. Radicals of a dozen different kinds wish it were preferred, and mistake growth in small numbers as an expression of a majority will. When times are tough, we expect to see many movements pressing claims of miraculous solutions.AbortionI claim abortion is a complex issue that voters ought to be allowed to hammer out state-by-state. con seems to be arguing that it is a done deal and should be banned outright. Actually, only about a third of the voters want abortion ban. The confusion in statistics arises from many of the voters who declare themselves to be "Pro-life" at the same time want to preserve abortion rights for others."Like other recent polls, Quinnipiac University"s annual voter survey shows that supporters of the landmark Supreme Court ruling now outnumber opponents by a two-to-one margin. Some 64% voiced support for Roe v. Wade in last year"s poll, up from 60% in 2010. Only 31% said they opposed the Roe decision, down from 35% two years earlier. Yet when pollsters phrase the same basic question this way"Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"the opposite trend emerges. In the past two years alone, Gallup has seen "pro-life" sentiment rise by four points (from 46% to 50%), with "pro-choice" sentiment falling accordingly." [ http://tv.msnbc.com...] It's like asking people is they want to practice some type of offensive speech, versus asking if they want the right to be preserved for others. People are "pro-life" in not favoring abortion, but "pro-choice" in wanting to preserve the right for others. Even wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade does not equate to wanting abortion banned. It would only return the question to the states. I listed many issues that remain even if a supposed radical solution were imposed to the abortion issue. Con didn't dispute my list, but added more issues that arise from permitting abortion. That supports my position is that the issue is too complex to simply resolve by a claimed radical solution. The best we can do is evolve a solution that won't please everyone, but will be most satisfactory. Welfare Con does not address my main argument, that if government yanked support suddenly, there would be "orphans in the street" (in general, dramatic problems) and the reaction would likely result in government programs being reinstated. The evolutionary approach is to pick off pieces of the problem and transition them to private charity or to the States. Con only argued that the problem is severe. I agree, but that doesn't mean a radical solution would succeed. Social Security I do not understand Con's claim that Social security has destroyed some people's requirement. I agree the system is at risk and needs reform, and that 401K-type approaches are superior. But I don't see what is "destroyed." My argument is that radical change to reform the system won't happen, because right now even tiny reforms are demogogued into claims of destroying the system. As pressure on the Social Security system increases, making small changes are likely to become possible. That's the opportunity to evolve reforms. Sources Many of Con's source links are broken. To get to the reference, click on the link so it appears in the browser URL, then delete the stray characters at the end of the link that are obviously causing the problem.