When it comes to government policy I tend to grade on a curve. I actually agree with you that the quality of government policy is generally quite poor. But it's not equally poor everywhere, and improving government's function (which will in some cases meaning having it do less) can do a lot of good for a lot of people.
I should also point out that choosing to take no action is still a policy decision. To give you an example, a few years a go some crazy woman pulled a knife on a plane, leading to a bit of an incident. There was a review of airline security regulation for domestic flights (which usually have no searches or metal detectors in my country). Cabinet decided, on the basis of advice from officials, that existing regulation was sufficient, and the only thing that needed to be done was put a lockable door on the cabin, which was being phased in already. Would you regard this as a good policy decision?
I guess I would say I don't know.
Have you read Taleb's The Black Swan? He has a counterfactual story that is extremely similar (though it uses 9/11); basically there aren't any (even negative) incentives for politicians to push such policies through until after some huge disaster happens.
To whom it may concern:
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
(After the critical success of part II, and the strong box office sales of part III in spite of mixed reviews, will part IV finally see the June Open Thread jump the shark?)