Nirvana Fallacy VS. Correct Philippines' Three Point Agenda

The Nirvana fallacy is defined by Logically Fallacious as: "Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a "perfect world" or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason." This is the problem among many Filipinos tend to lean on the Nirvana fallacy. It's not surprising considering that many Filipinos tend to get stuck with what some Netizens call as "The Poor Filipino Logic".

Let's take a look at the unfortunate incidents of Pinoy bandwagons and how they expect their leaders to do everything for them. Maybe some of former president Noynoy Aquino's critical receptions are more based on him not being the ideal leader than all his flaws. Some people probably voted for President Rodrigo R. Duterte not based on his strengths and weaknesses but because they're Dutertards. I may be a Duterte supporter but I'm ready to offer constructive criticism and accept his shortcomings. Noytards do have the Nirvana fallacy in the sense they expect Duterte not to make any mistakes as if Noynoy himself makes no mistakes.

Nirvana fallacy against economic liberalization

It's already a common issue that some object to free trade because Filipino businesses aren't ready because they're not competitive enough. They say that Filipinos must first learn to be competitive before they can face foreign direct investors. The problem is that this promotes the culture of overprotective behavior that makes people reject the harsh reality they can't avoid. A good illustration is having Filipino athletes train and train yet they never enter into any competitions to show how great they are. Just think what if Lydia De Vega who was once won the fastest woman in the world award never competed abroad? How would the world know of the greatness that Filipinos are capable of if De Vega herself didn't enter into these competitions, lose, train and try again until she won that title?

How can Filipino businesses show the world  how competent they are if they don't engage in international marketing in some way? Anyone can go to College, get a four year degree in any business related course, even get a graduate school degree or even a doctorate in commerce but still end up like the foolish learned men in the story of the Scholars and the Lion. This is the issue of viewing the threats but not the opportunities. Some may think that foreign investors are only threats but they never view them as opportunities. When there's competition there's going to be both threats and opportunities at the same time. The disadvantage of free trade is that local businesses could be destroyed anytime but it's expected if you're incompetent. Any competent Filipino businessman can take advantage of that which I will discuss in the next paragraph since it will be quite long.

How can a competent Filipino businessman take advantage of foreign direct investors while having competition? This gives him competition and the motivation to do better. But at the same time he has both potential service providers and potential customers. Let's say that a Filipino businessman is involved with selling basic goods by the wholesale. There will be competitors coming in but he also sees potential customers and service providers. He was always complaining about the local transportation service so he gets a competent foreign transportation service to run his business more efficiently. He gets the best Internet connection to make sure that he gets all his orders done on time. He goes and eats to his favorite restaurant/s then discovers that there's more restaurants. So he smells the competition of his favorite restaurant/s as opportunity to sell more of the basic goods. When other businessmen follow it becomes a cycle of competitiveness because even if they're not aiming to be number one but they're aiming to keep their businesses alive.

Nirvana fallacy against federalism 

Many misunderstand what federalism is. Do they even do enough research about what federalism is? There is a huge difference between federalism and feudalism. I guess most people don't understand that you can't get rid of political dynasties by removing them. You can think of how political dynasties are like hydra heads. You get rid of one head and the more they multiply. They got rid of the Marcos regime and more political dynasties followed such as the Aquinos and the Binays. I wonder is Winnie Monsod dyslexic or just plain dishonest? Considering her intellect she's most likely twisting the facts to suit her convenience. Federalism is all about decentralizing governments where local governments where states and provinces share power with the national government.

The problem of the Philippines is the Imperial Manila system. Saying that Filipinos aren't ready for federalism is stupid. Either they must be ready or perish. The Imperial Manila system has caused more divisions than unity in the Philippines. We have arrogant Tagalistas who act like as if the rest of the Philippines outside Tagalog areas are just "conquered area" than part of the whole kingdom. If there's any advantage of the Imperial Manila system it's that they can make all decisions that they want without consulting. The disadvantage is that the rest of the Philippines is not the same as Manila. The needs of one region is different from another region. One example we can name is the needs of Region X are different from Region Y. It may time a little more time (then again oiling it with timely response is necessary) but allowing the affected region to participate can make the process better.

How can federalism be more beneficial than a unitary system? Do you even wonder why many stuff like the release of NSO documents and government IDs take a lot of time? It's all because of the Imperial Manila system. If delegation of authority was done through various regions then these processes will have better speed and accuracy. While uniformity is important but it's also important to decentralize. It's about having a balance of uniformity and diversity. It's like when you go to a restaurant: there's both unity and diversity. You get different types of menu but it's all united under one theme. A Filipino restaurant may serve different types of food but it's still united under competency. That is what federalism seeks to do with diversity.

Nirvana fallacy against the parliamentary system

I remembered a time when I was in elementary there was panic about Charter Change. They fear that having Charter Change or which is now alternatively called as Constitutional Reform will bring about dictatorships. They just don't see the difference of how a parliamentary and presidential system works. It's stupid how they keep criticizing the cons of the parliamentary system while praising the presidential system as if it doesn't have flaws. I could understand the pros of the presidential system is that it prevents people from staying long in power. What they don't see is that it would be a waste to let a competent head of state stay for only six to eight years if he can do more until he's no longer fit.

What's the problem with the presidential system? They better take a look at the United States' incompetence in running a free trade system. Before they blame free trade for its current problems they better do more research. No, it's not free trade that's causing America to go down but overspending and a popularity-based election. The Philippines has also been stuck with the popularity-based election. Worse, it's stuck with spare tire politics. The dilemma of impeaching Noynoy (or better, him getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia) meant people will have to jump from the frying pan to the fire. It would have been different if Noynoy were ousted by a vote of no confidence. It wouldn't guarantee that former vice president Jejomar Binay would be the president. It could have been Binay vs. Grace Poe-Llamanzares vs. Richard Gordon vs. Bongbong Marcos vs. Alan Peter Cayetano for the position of prime minister. Maybe, the Philippines would have had Cayetano as president.

It would mean that President Duterte would find a better successor to replace him. It would not be automatically that Bongbong sits down as Raissa Espinosa-Robles would suggest from her warped mind. Instead, it would mean people have to prove themselves. If Cayetano is more competent than Bongbong then he would be the better candidate. It would also mean that voting for a new prime minister is based on credibility over popularity. Let's say that the candidates who are nominated are Cayetano, Bongbong, Bum Aquino and Grace Poe-Llamanzares. All four of them most prove their worth to be the new prime minister. Bum will have less chances for popularity based elections. If Cayetano proves himself better then he will be the new prime minister.

Why all three points must come together in harmony

It would do no good just to have just one without the other. Having free trade would only damage the government if it were handled by the incompetency of a presidential system. Having free trade would only benefit Imperial Manila if a federal government is not formed or if scams like the DAP and PDAF will continue. Federalism would do no good if the nation is under economic protectionism and/or the incompetent presidential system. Having a parliamentary system would do no good if the nation is still too centralized and/or is still under the plague of economic protectionism.

It's all about making up for the flaws of each other. Sure corruption and poverty will not be zero but isn't it your job to get out of poverty? If corruption can be eradicated then what's the use of having an ombudsman? It's all about balancing responsibility. Even if no system is perfect but think about it that you can't get rid of mistakes but you can certainly reduce them by a significant number through a competency-based system and maintaining strict discipline as part of good economics.