I think you've actually got 4 things going on there:
Based on human value - humanism, some would argue liberalism
Based on religious values - theocratic
Counter intuitive - best I've come up with so far is counter intuitive
Counter to human/religious values for government's good - pragmatic
The last two could also be described as "objective oriented" or "objective driven " (as opposed to process)
Thanks for replying. Even in the MMM Forum's "Off Topic" it's a little in the weeds. Which is why it wasn't stacked with 4 paragraphs of examples like I originally wrote it.
A key nuance I left out is that the values aren't necessarily religious. For example, government subsidies to the US gun industry. Plenty of non religious and religious people would have issues with that. But IMO the gun industry endures unique challenges such as durable product with great potential mis use that naturally outpaces demand. The gun industry's solution is marketing based on unrealistic risk analysis and paranoia. Marketing that IMO warped American gun culture. Subsidies would curtail the need for this. Another solution along these lines is just going Swiss. Every able bodied person is issued an assault rifle whether they like them or not and inducted into the militia. (though considering the US size, an Irregular Ready Reserve) You'd be surprised how many pro-gun advocates dislike this "well regulated militia" part of our 2nd Amendment. The end result of either would go a long ways toward curtailing gun related crime - with patience.
Another example is to just issue underprivileged people in ghettos and rural communities the money it would take to incarcerate them for 5 years. Just hand them a check with some financial counseling. The cost of incarceration is almost as much as a decent college education. More, considering repeat offenders in prison "grad studies" the government pays for. Of course you'd have plenty of people screaming based on ideas of race, class, work ethic, etc. Valid complaints too. Millionaires would have nothing to bitch about but what about people who are just north of the financial cut off? Shouldn't able bodied people offer something to the society before society cuts them a check? Even inside poor communities you'd have leaders screaming that free money = free self destruction fuel. And it's absolutely true a percentage - a large percentage - of the recipients WOULD waste it on drugs, junk, etc. But generally there's reason to believe the ones that use the money wisely will offset them, all subsequent costs and many hidden costs.
Also counterintuitive considering human nature. The past 100+ years humans compared themselves to machines. But we aren't. Machines are lock step in performing, if designed well, for their purpose. But humans don't know what our purpose is or even if we have one. So we act irrationally and counter to what the mechanistic view of humanity is. So sometimes counter-intuitive initiatives work. Example: one of the men who pioneered potato consumption lived in rural France. The local conservative peasants wanted nothing to do with potatoes. So he conducted his potato development under armed guard and kept a guard at the potato field all day. But he posted no night guard. The peasants snuck into the field at night, pilfered potatoes and so French Fries were born (joking about that last bit).
I know you can tie a lot of these to political ideology. But I'm not sure they separate them that much. Even in the distant past Kings sometimes punished murder not because it was an offense against the gods but because the victim was a tax paying subject of the crown. Such measures can also infringe on values in ways a lot of people would reject no matter what. I have a crime reduction idea: Anyone or suspected of violating a law - ANY law - is handed a citation by the police. Citation recipients would appear, under penalty of death, to a specific place and time. A percentage, say 10%, is chosen by lottery, and summarily executed. In cases where criminal suspicion isn't slam dunk, or maybe even if it is, the officer who cited the recipient is added to the lottery.* I hypothesize the fear and uncertainty in such a system would prevent all sorts of crime. Including white collar crime and most police crime where punishment seems so absent or absurdly minor. I'm certain a system like this would work far better than our criminal justice system with its expensive, inefficient courts, lawyers, judges, prisons, etc. I'm MORE certain no government now or in the whole of human history would accept it. :D
I think the refined terminology would go a long way to assisting discourse on the subject.
* "Lotto" Harry: "I stood the lottery 6 times puttin' punks like you down. And stood another 3 for shootin' punks resisting citation. Maybe this time my number'll come up 'steada yours and they'll put ME down. So ya' gotta ask yourself, punk: Do ya feel lucky?"
