"Should we"

There is a philosophical error so pervasive I believe it has a directional effect on governmment policy. Consider the following questions:

• "Should we stop global warming?"
• "Should we build walkable cities?"
• "Should we prevent AI from turning the world into paperclips?"
• "Should we save the dolphins?"
• "Should we provide healthcare for <whoever>?"
• "Should we end racism?"
• "Should we reduce traffic congestion?"

It is implied that "we" refers to a democratic nation-state: the USA, France, Luxembourg, etcetera. But that's ambiguous. A nation-state is both a nation and a state. A nation is a people; the people of the United States are a nation. A state is a government; the government of the United States is a government.

When a person asks "Should we do $x$?", they're literally asking about the nation. The answer to all of these questions is "yes". If all else is held equal, it is better to live in a walkable world where nobody is racist against dolphins. All you really have to ask is "are dolphins good" and the answer is "yes".

But when "Should we do $x$?" is translated into a concrete policy proposal, "we" becomes the government. And the government's mechanism for implementing policies is almost always forcible compulsion. So anything that seems good becomes compulsory, which is bad. "Should we end racism?" turn into DEI.

It works in reverse too. Anything that seems bad becomes forbidden.

"Prostitutes suffer" → "Prostitution is bad" → "We should stop prostitution" → "The government should stop prostitution" → "Prostitution should be illegal" → "Prostitutes should be jailed"

These are six different claims, but asking "Should we end prostitution?" bundles all of them together. It conflates small-scale voluntary choices with large-scale laws restricting freedom.

What's nasty about this error is it's non-random. This error biases democratic policy toward government-mandated homogeneity, and against freedom.