Design From Behind the Veil of Ignorance
Judge any system by assuming you'll be assigned a random place in it and your enemy will one day run it
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 70%
Gurwinder combines John Rawls's veil of ignorance with a practical heuristic he calls Coyote's law. The 'original position fallacy' is that people back systems assuming they'll sit at the top: leftists picture themselves as the planners, rightists as the lords, never the planned or the peasants. History disproves this, as communist revolutions purged the very intellectuals who cheered them on. The corrective is to design any society or policy as if you'll be dropped into it at a random position, which forces you to protect everyone. Coyote's law extends it forward in time: don't give the government, or any institution, a power you wouldn't want your political enemies to wield, because one day they will be in charge of it. Together they replace short-term, main-character reasoning with long-term, second-order thinking.
Origin
Gurwinder Bhogal adapts John Rawls's original position and veil of ignorance, pairs it with his own 'Coyote's law,' and applies it to left and right politics on Modern Wisdom.
Core principles
- 01Most delusional worldviews stem from main-character syndrome
- 02You will not be the planner or the lord; assume a random role
- 03Any power you grant can be turned against you
- 04Design for the highest average outcome, not your fantasised position
- 05Think in second and third-order consequences, not first
How to run it
- 1
Name the system or power
Pin down the specific policy, institution, or authority you are being asked to support, such as a planned economy, a censorship power, or a legal precedent.
- 2
Strip your assumed position
Drop the main-character assumption that you'll be the planner, the noble, or otherwise among the winners. That assumption is what makes intoxicating visions feel safe.
Watch out The original position fallacy is seductive precisely because it flatters you into imagining the elite seat.
- 3
Assign yourself a random role
Evaluate the system as if you'll be placed in it at random, from top to bottom. This motivates you to ensure every position, including the worst, is tolerable.
Pro tip Optimise for the highest average life quality, not your hoped-for fortunate slot.
- 4
Apply Coyote's law
Ask whether you'd accept this power if your worst political enemy controlled it. Rulers change, so any apparatus you build can and will be used against you.
Pro tip If you're on the left, test the policy against a future right-wing government, and vice versa.
Watch out Cheering a power because it hurts your opponents today ignores that the same tool returns to hurt you tomorrow.
- 5
Support only what survives both tests
Back the policy only if it holds up under random assignment and under adversary control, thinking through consequences of consequences rather than first-order impulses.
In the wild
Left-wing intellectuals backed communist revolutions expecting to be the planners at the top. Instead, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot imprisoned or murdered intellectuals first, since reading and writing are a society's memory. French Revolution advocates were among the first guillotined. The original position fallacy blinded them to the role they'd actually be assigned.
→ The cheerleaders became the casualties, exactly what the veil of ignorance is meant to prevent.
Right-wingers who spent years championing free speech began suppressing and censoring opponents once in a position to. Coyote's law warns that the censorship apparatus they build will pass to a future administration and be turned back on them, the leopards-eating-your-face outcome.
→ Short-term retribution creates a long-term weapon aimed at its own creators.
Common mistakes
Assuming you'll be at the top
The original position fallacy has you design systems for the elite seat you imagine occupying, when random assignment would drop you anywhere.
First-order thinking about power
Backing a power because it hurts your enemies now ignores that rulers change and the same apparatus will be wielded against you.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone weighing political positions, organisational rules, or precedent-setting powers whose control may change hands over time.
Not ideal for
Fast personal choices with no distributional stakes or transfer of power to a future adversary.
From the transcript
“Far leftists favor planned economies because they imagine themselves as the planners, not the planned. Far rightists favor a return to feudalism because they imagine…”
“Don't give the government a power you wouldn't want your political enemies to wield because one day they may well be in charge of it.”
“it's got to be the assumption that you will be assigned a place within that state at random. Because then this will motivate you to…”
From the episode
19 Uncomfortable Truths About Human Nature - Gurwinder Bhogal - #1073
Gurwinder Bhogal