Thinking in Systems: What matters is the outcome, not our opinion

“If you want to understand the deepest flaws in systems, pay attention to the rules and to who holds power over them.” — Donella Meadows

I regret to inform you, but it matters little whether we are in favor of or against the legalization of drugs, firearms, prostitution, abortion, or assisted death. The crucial point that brings us together here is the systemic consequences of each political decision. After all, we will not live on ideologies or narratives: we will live with the concrete effects that today’s choices will produce tomorrow.

Let us begin with prohibition. To delegitimize something by decree does not ensure its extinction. Take, for example, the Brazilian reality: brothels are illegal, yet the enforcement of the law is virtually nonexistent. Or look at other countries where clandestine establishments operate with the collusion of public officials, bribed into turning a blind eye.

One might claim this failure stems from a lack of resources. Even so, consider the United States’ war on drugs—one trillion dollars over half a century—and yet it did not eliminate supply or tame demand, which continues to move hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Perhaps the radical solution is to follow Singapore’s model and impose the death penalty on drug traffickers; but why have the world’s major democracies not adopted such a rule?

We must ask ourselves: what is the actual outcome of imposing any kind of prohibition, at any place or time? The only certainty is that, however noble the intentions, we would merely be granting the State more coercive power over its own citizens. When a lunatic comes to power—and history teaches us this is not a mere possibility—those resources, which were supposed to serve the common good, end up ensuring the maintenance of tyrannies, oppressing dissidents, enriching oligarchies, and imposing particular worldviews.

Before we brandish good intentions, it is wise to measure the consequences. Prohibition is not a panacea. And if, on the other hand, everything were permitted? Not even the most fervent liberal would want a neighbor with weapons of mass destruction. So, the issue is not about unrestricted permission, but rather about the criteria and mechanisms ensuring the correct enforcement of norms to achieve the desired outcome.

Consider the case of alcoholic drinks: Prohibition in the United States, instead of curbing alcohol, fueled organized crime. Its repeal undermined the foundations of smuggling and redirected public funds towards education, oversight, and harm reduction. In many cases, legalization can free up the debate and shed light on deep-rooted causes, enabling wiser policies. Similarly, legalizing abortion does not equate to multiplying it—indeed, it can open pathways to reduce it, as what happens in the open is easier to tackle than what lurks in the shadows.

An example is Yom Kippur in Israel, a sacred day when streets are devoid of cars, without a single law forbidding them. It is the power of culture that sustains the custom, not state coercion. As a society, we need to learn to deal with our differences not through force, but by establishing collective values. For sooner or later, we may face the tragedy of a ruler who disagrees with us coming to power; and we certainly do not want this individual to wield an unlimited repressive apparatus.

Clearly, there are times when the use of state force is indispensable—murderers, rapists, and criminal organizations must find no shelter. However, the power of coercion should be strictly necessary and never total. Balance is vital to preserve individual freedom.

Nevertheless, an excess of laws, regulations, and norms piles up until it forms a maze in which honesty becomes burdensome, while those acting in bad faith gain a competitive advantage. In this game, the righteous withdraw, and the unscrupulous advance. What fate awaits us after one or ten decades of such distorted incentives?

Prohibiting should be a last resort—and if adopted, it should come with a sunset clause that allows for periodic reassessment. Meanwhile, permission offers the opportunity to measure tangible effects, uncover fundamental causes, and refine policies. New laws should be tested on smaller scales, with empirical observation, before being imposed on entire populations. Above all, it is imperative to limit and distribute power, so that no tyrant finds fertile ground, especially as we make our lives freer and safer.

Have questions, feedback, or suggestions for the author? Find him on LinkedIn.