Conspiracy? Or Incompetence?
Hanlon’s Razor attempts to dispel the notion of conspiracy in favour of basic ineptitude – how is this in any way preferable?
Hanlon's razor is an adage that states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” It is named after Robert J. Hanlon, who submitted the statement to Murphy's Law Book Two (1980).
How often has someone presented you with this ‘rule of thumb’ when you’ve become ‘conspiratorial’ over one too many whiskies on some creeping Sunday dawn? Or conversely, how many times have you offered this up as an expedient way out of a difficult political discussion?
The maxim may not be quoted word for word, but the intent remains the same – to dismiss the idea that anyone in a position of power would conspire to commit heinous crimes against the citizenry for personal gain, and it is far more probable that whatever deplorable social outcome has resulted from their terrible policy making was simply the biproduct of human stupidity and gross ineptitude.
Apart from the fact that this popular rejoinder of the credulous originates from a work of light comedy and has no basis in serious philosophical thought, the glaring fallacy inherent in its connotation should have been enough to consign it to the scrapheap of theoretical bunkum from the get-go.
But alas, we are stuck with this facile incongruity, and thus I am forced to debunk it.
What is the intention that lurks behind Hanlon’s Razor?
In my experience it has only ever been seriously used to bolster faith in The System.
At a grassroots level, one can certainly use the Razor in a flippant manner, with the intention of smoothing over a prickly social situation. For instance – “Godfrey wasn’t trying to embarrass you when he made that crack about your girlfriend; he’s just a moron.”
Sure. And maybe Godfrey is just a moron. But the higher up the ladder you go, the less relevant Godfrey’s intentions become.
Consider this: If Godfrey made a crude joke about your girlfriend, then what was the likely outcome? Your feelings were hurt. Her feelings were hurt. And most likely, everyone went home that night thinking a little less of Godfrey. Big deal, right? That’s probably something we can all get over.
But what if Godfrey is the Prime Minister? Or the President? Or the Governor of the Reserve Bank? And what if Godfrey’s behaviour results not in the embarrassment of a few of his friends and the slight tarnishing of his social standing, but the collapse of the economy and the destruction of millions of people’s livelihoods?
What then?
My question is this: In such a situation, does it really even matter what Godfrey’s intentions were?
It is quite obvious that in a situation of this magnitude, it matters not a jot what Godfrey’s intentions were – it only matters what happened.
Let us then examine what has happened as a direct result of the decisions taken by our rulers in the last three years (if not the last forty years).
Without reeling off the entire litany:
Record inflation resulting in a cost of living crisis unprecedented in living memory; a wealth-poverty gap never before seen in human history; the near total destruction of the middle class with only the offspring of the wealthy now able to afford a first home deposit; spiralling educational and social indicators; record crime; the disintegration of the family unit; plummeting fertility rates; disastrous immigration outcomes in most of the West…
Must I go on? Must I also mention the ‘mysterious’ global excess deaths that have beset us since 2022?
Few but the cravenly blind, and those who continue to benefit from this lopsided, cancerous pastiche of ‘liberal democracy’ can deny that things are at an all-time low. All one needs to do is take off the rose-tinted glasses and look at what is actually happening.
Let us now apply Hanlon’s Razor to the current situation, as many are wont to do when one raises the spectre of ‘conspiracy’…
“Oh come on,” they will scoff. “It’s ludicrous to suggest that these folk would deliberately engineer the destruction of our society. They’re just incompetent!”
Okay… To this I would retort: THEN WHY DO YOU STILL TRUST THEM?
The sentiment inherent in the shrugging off of disastrous policy outcomes as ‘basic ineptitude’ is that we should not distrust our rulers because their intentions are still good; they did not mean to mess things up as utterly as they have, they’re just a bit hopeless.
There is a farcical TV sitcom kind of attitude toward the whole thing – almost like it’s somehow endearing: ‘The poor bumbling fools, I wouldn’t want their job! Got to cut them a bit of slack, eh? It must be a tough gig! Here’s hoping they can do better next time around.’
Do we apply the same logic to service providers, colleagues, even friends such as Godfrey when they repeatedly fail us? We do not. Yet when it’s those who hold the highest offices of the land, we miraculously become paragons of absolution.
This is the most insidious manifestation of mass Stockholm Syndrome I’ve ever witnessed – the idea that we should not distrust our rulers because they are not evil, they are just useless…
It is simple:
Either 1) They are deliberately conspiring to destroy our way of life – and thus: WE SHOULD NOT TRUST THEM. We should depose them and ensure they never hold power again.
Or 2) They are completely incompetent – and thus: WE SHOULD NOT TRUST THEM. We should depose them and ensure they never hold power again.
Do you see? It matters not what their intentions are. It only matters what is happening.
Regular readers of my work will know full well which side of the fence I sit on. But my opinion is irrelevant at the end of the day. The facts are before us, and they are crystal clear.
The people who lead us have failed.
They have failed repeatedly and monumentally.
They must be removed and held to account, and a new system erected from the rubble of their disgraceful legacy.