Many complain: The system is broken. Trains don’t arrive, traffic lights malfunction, government paperwork takes ages, consumer devices break down after a few months, the government is again missing the opportunity to shape future. But when I look closer at these complaints, I find myself questioning whether the system(s) truly is faulty—or whether it’s actually functioning exactly as designed.
Public transprt
Let’s start with public transportation, as it is debated actually in Germany. Everyone would prefer punctual, reliable trains. But punctuality is just one of the system’s objectives. Other interests shape outcomes, such as employee work hours, labor laws, maintenance schedules, and above all, cost efficiency. Staff shortages mean fewer checks and more mistakes; cost-cutting leads to not enough spare trains or unreliable infrastructure. So what might look like “system failure” is actually the result of deliberate prioritization: optimizing budgets, not perfection.
Consumer goods
Consider the world of consumer goods. Why do washing machines or smartphones so often break soon after the warranty expires? Companies carefully balance between product quality, manufacturing costs, market price, and profit margins. Building a device that lasts twenty years would increase production costs and raise prices—possibly making products less competitive and will lead to bankruptcy. A household that has an eternally running washing machine will never buy one again. Instead, companies choose durability that fits a certain price point and business model. The goal isn’t longevity, but profitability.
Administration
Public administration offers another example. Slow document processing, long wait times at city offices, and frustration with official procedures are common. But behind these delays are competing priorities: regulatory compliance, staff workload limits, pandemic rules, budgets, and digital transition projects. The system isn’t haphazard; it’s carefully calibrated to avoid overspending and burnout—even if it means delays for citizens.
Healthcare
Healthcare is yet another. Patients want speedy appointments and comprehensive care, but hospital systems balance this with limited staff, legal mandates, insurance regulations, and cost controls. Each choice generates side effects: optimizing for cost reduces flexibility; maximizing patient time for one individual can mean longer waits for others.
No-compromise sectors
Some systems, like aviation safety, set a single, uncompromising top priority: security. Aircraft maintenance is triple-checked, checklists are rigorously followed, redundant staff review each process. This reduces accidents to a minimum but at a high operational cost and inflexibility. Commercial air travel is thus very safe—but expensive and often slow to innovate.
All these examples point toward a universal truth: every system is “perfect”—not in the sense of flawlessness and maybe not fulfilling your individual demand, but in perfectly reflecting its many, often conflicting, objectives. If we want a different outcome, simply “fixing errors” isn’t enough; we must decide which goals are truly paramount and be willing to accept the trade-offs.
The perfectly balanced security system
This tension is nowhere more apparent than in debates about security and personal freedom—a classic case of competing priorities. Demanding perfect public safety, for instance, leads to increased surveillance: more cameras, stricter laws, algorithmic monitoring, and data retention. These measures can reduce crime, prevent terrorism, and boost social order. Yet every gain in security is bought at the price of less privacy, less spontaneity, and diminished individual freedom. You want to go for holiday to the beach? No. You are not allowed to by police. There are still too many there and that leads to security problems. You are forced to stay in your apartment. And, how does that feel?
Conversely, prioritizing personal freedom means accepting more unpredictability, fewer checks, and perhaps more risk, but also a society that champions trust, creativity, and autonomy. The “system” isn’t failing when incidents happen—it’s functioning as intended, balancing surveillance and liberty according to what we collectively prioritize. A massive accident on the highway and not enough rescue teams at hand? But you voted during last election for that party that promised a more “efficient” health care system. Voilà – how does that feel?
In the end, I’ve learned that shouting about system failure misses the point. Our systems aren’t broken—they’re built around the goals we choose, and often those goals compete and conflict. Whether it’s public transport, product quality, government, or security, what we experience as imperfection is usually the result of goal conflicts and prioritization.
If we want real change, we need honest debate not about mistakes, but about which values and priorities are worth defending, and which trade-offs we’re truly willing to make. Only then can we shape systems that serve us best—in freedom, in safety, or somewhere on the spectrum between.
