A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

Thanks for your engagement, John_C_1812. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. I hope we can have fun challenging each other's views, and increase our human connection between ourselves and others as we do.I see that you proposed alternate definitions of values and policies; I agree to some extent that actions matter, but even if using exclusively your terms, in my opinion having a measure of worth first will, longer-term and more-robustly, lead to superior actions, and therefore superior outcomes, than simply having good conduct first.However, I mentioned my specific definitions, regarding principles and standards, and government actions, because I find that most political debate and partisan disagreement is, in my estimation, just people with broadly-shared values, arguing over policies as if those values are not shared, while being blind to the recognition that since many values are shared, we should be able to move forward easily once we recognize that and work together on policies that agree. While there is real worth in your perspective on terms, I don't believe that it has the problem-solving power of the view that I am proposing.Values are Consistently Leading Indicators of Other PositivesIn study after study in the analysis and pursuit of excellence, the results are consistent: Societies that value things, are good at those things.In a 2013 research paper on education, it was found that countries with vastly different policies could produce broadly globally high-performing students, but there was something those countries had in common: A particular type of value for education, and support of teachers. Even while being careful to rule out cofactors or reverse-causality (which is fairly common in this type of situation--as I said, values feeds policy, which leads to altered values in return), the conclusions were reliable. [1]Far superior in extreme / "breakdown" scenariosThere's also the importance of values in situations when due to a disaster or other unexpected misfortune, infrastructure breaks down or the government is incapable of stepping in. In societies where cooperation is highly valued, we see consistently that outcomes are more-cooperative in such scenarios.Consider two different flooding scenarios in nearly the same area in Louisiana: With similar population demographics, and near-identical policies, in a similar situation, there were two different outcomes: in a rural area, where the culture is slightly more prone to charity, cooperation, and "do-it-yourself", flood survivors were found banding together to help one another. But in a very similar scenario in a nearby city, there were some stories of survivors banding together, but also situations slightly different cultural values led to vastly different outcomes: riots, looting, and anarchic chaos.Less corruption, more cooperationThe simple approach to problem solving is, "if only we had a policy to address that problem, it would be better." But when there are policies in place, but not widespread belief in or agreement with the values that support the policy, policies get skirted. A good example is tax law: It's widely understood, from the most ordinary low-level earner to the biggest mega-corporation, that being "good" at taxes, is paying as little as possible. So when it's time to pay taxes... people and businesses find aggressive loopholes. In a society that strongly felt the value from their portion of taxes was meaningful, tax evasion would be greatly reduced. Values, not policy, are again the key.Thought exercise: Values with no corresponding policy vs. policy with no corresponding valuesAnd to help understand which should be more strongly preferred, let us consider a couple of imaginary alternate-dimensions of our world: In one, the government's policies are heavily faulty and ineffectual, but the members of society--workers, business leaders, and elected officials--share a common collection of heartfelt values that are in accord with a great society. And in the second, government policy is flawless; a well-oiled machine, effectively and efficiently addressing everything that we perceive as important, but the society that lives in that government, has values counter to the good things those policies are trying to implement. Which would be a better place to live, just right now, in "normal" today? Which would be better in time of disaster? Which will be better 100 years from now?The one with values, even in the absence of good policy, would have a difficult contest against the good-policy but no-values one in the first "just right now" test. An efficient, effective that "handles everything in a perfect way" ... but would that really be so much better? In such a society, those good policies are going to be funded by taxes from people who resent being forced to support them. There will be cheating, backstabbing and undermining at every turn, trying to prevent the good thing from happening. If the policies are still "perfect" and efficiently evading these backstabs and underminings, then it is almost certainly doing so with a Byzantine collection of bureaucratic gotchas, inspectors and auditors -- thoroughly efficient, but widely resented by the populace. This would be a benevolent authoritarian state!But on the other hand, The virtue-in-spite-of-bad-policy would have an effect on the other world as well. Even without good policy to implement education, care for the poor, etc, a society in which everyone--including the wealthy and powerful--does value such things, it is inevitable and nearly instant that those needs would be willingly, eagerly, joyously identified and addressed. Rather than a "benevolent totalitarianism", the no-policy society would be have a "black market of goodness" where good things happened in spite of poor policy, because when people have good values, we want to do good things.Easier to impact Right NowElected officials change every couple of years, but to actually get elected, takes much longer than that. (Step 1: become famous and/or a millionaire...). Or if you just want to go the policy change route, again... it takes longer than that; you have to build an organization, to start lobbying, and to sponsor and promote candidates who get closer to your policy. It's a big task, and it's not cheap. As a result, most people who care, and want policy to change, end up doing very little (or nothing) to promote that.On the other hand, a simple conversation is all it takes to move the needle on the values that we share. Holding a value and living it in your life, praising peers when you see it on display for them, having thoughtful discourse on those values ... there are so many natural things that we all do every day, that have a small, but real influence, every day, to shape the values of the society we live in. While policy may trail by decades, or may never end up changing at all, we still have the ability to impact society's values by living and promoting what we value--and if they are really our values, we do that anyway!SummaryPolicy is good, but values ultimately mean more to society. They're shown statistically to have impactful outcomes. They are more robust when things break down. They lead to reduced corruption and increased cooperation. And if you had to pick only one, the clear choice would be values. Let's see what we can do to make good values happen, and to spread the good ones that we have!1: Wursten, Huib, and Carel Jacobs. "The impact of culture on education." The Hofstede Centre, Itim International (2013). https://geert-hofstede.com...