5 ms·
That has some huge problems which we've all seen this weekend, but in the long run, is that really worse than the old style of decades of inaction and debate to
by 794CD01 10y ago
That has some huge problems which we've all seen this weekend, but in the long run, is that really worse than the old style of decades of inaction and debate topped off by an ineffectual bill that does nothing?
It's pretty similar to the disruption in the tech industry. "What do you mean you deploy bugs to production and then fix them after end users report them? Haven't you heard of QA?!!"
- lordCarbonFiber 10y agoThe difference is bugs in the current ad-tech darling or "uber for tindr dogs" won't ruin people's lives. There are good reasons why most professions (and even most difficult software) can't act as flippantly as "test it in prod".
- 794CD01 10y agoThat's not true at all. Most tech companies, like uber or tindr, are fundamentally aimed at ruining certain people's lives. And even when it's not intentional, it still happens, whether it's a bug that is effectively slander without a guilty party to bring suit against, an ad that infects you with malware that destroys your life's work, or just people being people.
- hkmurakami 10y agoThere are plenty of examples of accounts getting accidentally banned by Google/Amazon and someone's livelihood vaporizing overnight.
- mattnewton 10y agoYes. The process you described is called democracy. Unilateral executive action of the top cabinet alone outside times of declared war (and even sometimes within a war) would be called dictatorial or authoritarian. The debates, compromises checks are not just a tradition to be distrupted.
- 794CD01 10y agoDictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives. Calls for a businessman to cut through the red tape and run the government more efficiently are almost as old as American democracy itself. Call it whatever you like, we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway.
- mattnewton 10y agoThe problem is that many people thought they needed to take Trump's plans & pronouncements metaphorically when they voted for him. People who worked for him even http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-ant... The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position. And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
- 794CD01 10y agoI don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
- mattnewton 10y agoIt sounds like we are almost entirely in agreement :D I just think this order should be the new textbook example on why move fast and break things should not be executive policy.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoThere's also a third option.