Chapter 56 The dangers of "simplification" and "choose one"

Theoretically speaking, the more choices one faces, the more in-depth thinking people will arouse.Because you have to choose one from many options, you need to consider the problem comprehensively, and then you can make a judgment on this basis.However, this situation is just the opposite in psychology. Psychology believes that the more choices we face, the easier it is to lead to simple judgments. This is because there are too many options, people will become overwhelmed, and mental pressure will increase, so people are eager to make simple decisions in the end.This is called utility theory. Since it is a utility theory, it should be that the more options there are, the better. But why does the utility decrease when there are more options?I explained this in "Professionalism" based on the analysis of various phenomena that existed in Japanese society at that time.

However, in an election that concerns our lives and the future of the country, is it reasonable to judge only with "Yes" and "No"?We must know that the politician who wins the House of Representatives election will become the helm of Japan as a whole, so we should choose carefully instead of voting in ambiguous situations.In the final analysis, this is irresponsible to oneself. If the country is in a state of war, when the issue of sending troops or withdrawing troops arises, it is absolutely impossible for us to adopt an ambiguous attitude on the points of contention. At the time, however, privatization of the postal service was not a major issue concerning the fate of the country.Frankly speaking, there is no problem even if it continues to operate in the previous way, and it doesn't matter whether it is privatized or not.I personally think that the postal privatization measures are wrong, but many people also hold different views from mine, and they say "No" to my views.

In any case, postal privatization is not a major event that concerns the fate of the country, so it cannot be a major event that affects national elections.But even so, because the ambiguous attitude of the citizens finally led to extreme results, shouldn't this be a decision that the citizens can make after careful consideration? I think it is absurd to think that postal savings and state insurance are no longer needed in this day and age.Many countries in the world do not have postal savings, and it is normal for things like state-run insurance to be abolished when there are so many private insurances.

In short, both Postal Savings and State Insurance have completed their historical missions. The Postal Savings and State Insurance played their part when the postwar administrative service was ineffective, but now that the tasks entrusted to them by that era have been fulfilled, the correct course of action is not to privatize them, but to privatize them. directly abolish it.Nowadays, many non-government companies have taken on this task. If they are privatized again, it will put pressure on the market and cause abnormal development of the market.If the public can think about issues in this way, there will be no "Yes or No" debate, and no matter how many options there are, they will know it well.

It is precisely because this kind of choice has become a situation of choosing between two things that the people will not think about anything, so they will recognize the previous politicians, such as Prime Minister Takeshita Nobori who believes that "there is no way to do without a post office", and opposes it. Privatize it, oppose its abolition.At this time, the only way to deal with abandoning this view is to let those who oppose postal privatization lose the election, and let the "public opinion" in favor of postal privatization win.