@NikodymWhat I think of as 'social engineering' (not in the hacker sense of the expression), isn't done very often by governments. Yes, there *are* lessons we should take from the Communists. I say that as an ardent Capitalist who literally hates Communism. Not in developing a command economy, which is now long understood to be a enormous waste of intellect and resources by the Party in China and in the West (seems it's just Chomskyite-types in US universities that maintain it's a great idea), but by using the scientific method to the best of our ability to aid and extend the power of the market as much as possible. To study our assumptions and to rigorously test our understanding of the economy.There is a giant difference between being laissez faire, and being merely ignorant of how it works. A fucking mammoth gulf I should say. To I, 1 scientist who's gone to the trouble of finding and analyzing data (e.g. Prof David Nutt in the UK, who was kicked out of his job for saying that weed and MDMA cause less damage than alcohol and tobacco) trumps that of a 100 civilians who wouldn't know reality unless it smacked them in the face.I stress this, because in the past Science has been manipulated and abused by the left, notably the anti-Darwinian Lamarkian view being forced upon scientists by 1 government scientist in Soviet Russia, a forced meme if ever there was one (it led to crop failure and millions died in famines). As a result, there has been a reasonable fear on the right, of too much scientific 'fiddling' with the economy, but it is unjustified.So, clearly it is proper to compartmentalize, in case your idea is completely wrong. So, you should try tests in specific areas and necessarily run lengthy trials, long before you implement the concept across entire regions.Using the scientific method to experiment with political and economic policy, is, to my mind, a far less laborious and difficult task than mindlessly using democracy to make scientific and economic decisions. If you have a small, powerful state, it is much much easier to think in this way. Also, it is fantastically less expensive in the long term.Note how Adam Smith's work The Wealth of Nations was received by the Government of the day! Quote.. they met on one occasion, of which recollection has been preserved, at Dundass house on Wimbledon Green, - Addington, Wilberforce, and Grenville being also of the company; and it is said that when Smith, who was one of the last guests to arrive, entered the room, the whole company rose from their seats to receive him and remained standing. Be seated, gentlemen, said Smith. No, replied Pitt; we will stand till you are first seated, for we are all your scholars.This was a special group of men, they appreciated scientific work, esp. that which they knew would further the nation. Not just mere patriotism, but also an activism, which I do NOT see today in the West, to my great displeasure. Look at what historians say about William Pitt, the PM at the time:QuotePitt always confessed himself one of Smith's most convinced disciples. The first few years of his long ministry saw the daybreak of free trade. He brought in a measure of commercial emancipation for Ireland ; he carried a commercial treaty with France ; he passed, in accordance with Smith's recommendations, laws simplifying the collection and administration of the revenue.Intellectual strength *and* balls. That's what it takes to make a great nation. Britain went from a backwater to the world's largest empire within less than 120 years, all on the basis of the free trade philosophy. In 1 century, everybody went from illiterate to literate. Today, I see a collection of men who are so weak I am necessarily forced to use capitalization for the first time on SR: I mean they are WEAK. They neither the courage nor the intellectual strength nor the ideals to make a better world. They are not innovators, they are merely managers of a giant ship they do not understand the workings of. They've never been down to the engineering deck, and are quite content to be social butterflies instead, forever afraid of other people's opinions.tldr; where are the real men?