Definition of ‘bad or hurtful policy'

'Bad or Hurtful Policy' is defined by this project as policy which is certified by universally accepted standards of non-partisan logic, facts and evidence to be hurtful to private citizens as well as counterproductive to its original aims.

More specifically, ‘bad or hurtful policies’ are both (1) regressive or hurtful to the American people (especially job-seeking, working- and lower-income), and (2) ineffective or counterproductive to the stated purposes of the policies themselves, as certified by basic standards of facts, empirical evidence, common experience, and logical reasoning.

In summary, such policies are not only hurtful to the private citizens they are supposed to serve (especially lower middle class and working/job-seeking poor), but are also counter-logical and counterproductive. They fall short of justification on non-partisan rational grounds, even by the standards of the average persons reasoning. This is due to obvious conflicts of interest (often due to public-private lobbying, private influence, or other reasons) in which there is a strong mismatch between their stated goals (such as reducing crime and drug use, deterring DUIs, increasing employment or reducing poverty) and their actual effects on society. In other words, they conflict with their openly-stated purpose and thereby fall short of basic standards of logic and reason. 

Such policies are, more often than not, exempt from any strong or rigorous standard of self-justification. This reality runs in direct contrast to most other spheres of professional activity. 

Examples of bad or hurtful policy:

(1)-Many tenant / landlord policies may be unfair or corrupt due to unrealistic expectations of tenants in a job / income-constrained environment, especially in light of recent Hurricane Sandy damage to residential buildings;

(2)-Many cases of mismanaged or diverted funding and budgets aimed at helping local communities, in which the funds do not go to their intended recipients in the manner or degree they are supposed to. 

(3)-Many law enforcement  policies such as stop and frisk divert resources-both police as well as tax payer money-away from real threats and into 'legal rackets' such as soft drug sentencing or other non-violent crimes.

(4)-Much of our legal system, nationally as well as locally, revolves around the money a person is able to pay rather than an objective procedural assessment of their guilt or innocence. In such cases, the consequences the person faces-even for smaller misdemeanors-is tied less to the severity of their act or crime and more to the level of disposable income they are able to access.

(5)- Many of our legal and judicial procedures are hurtful and regressive on people with lower (and often, even middle) incomes, they often displace a person from their job and important facets of their life. This often leads to unforeseen 2nd and 3rd-order consequences on the persons life, which can reinforce the problem in question to begin with. These unintended consequences are not calculated by our judicial system.

 

A great number of public policies, especially the ones which are the most irrational, counter-productive, and harmful, are immune from having to explain themselves to the public on rational grounds. This is due in large part to the fact that public figures do not have sufficient incentive or pressure to give a rational argument for the existence of these public policies.

The purpose of this movement is to create that pressure, and force public figures to hold their programs and policies to the same basic standards of rational argument, explanation and fact-based justification expected in other professional spheres of life.