3 ms·
The a priori expected outcome of any government intervention is neutral at best, net negative on average. Worse still, government interventions are sticky - es
by kansface 6y ago
The a priori expected outcome of any government intervention is neutral at best, net negative on average. Worse still, government interventions are sticky - essentially append only. We create government, policy, institutions, and regulations but very rarely remove them. Slow government is a feature, not a bug given the constraints.
- dv_dt 6y agoSlow government is like reducing the clock of your cpu in order to protect against security vulnerabilities. It's a non-sequitur. If you want to protect against bad government decisions you have to address the processes by which decisions are made, not slow down already made decisions.
- kansface 6y ago> Slow government is like reducing the clock of your cpu in order to protect against security vulnerabilities. Negative. Bad laws are the program (business logic) itself, not the vulnerabilities. In lieu of refactoring society, I'd vote to continue underclocking the CPU. In so many words, "move fast and break things" isn't how I want society to be run. You have proposed we "move fast but don't break things". I do not believe that possible.
- tremon 6y agoSlow government is like reducing the clock of your cpu in order to protect against security vulnerabilities Step debugging is exactly that: slowing down the execution enough so that errors in the process become apparent before the program reaches its fatal state. I disagree that it's a non-sequitur. What you want is for government to move slower than its observing processes, otherwise you can't prevent disasters, only correct them after-the-fact. Whether that means slowing down government or speeding up transparency (e.g. journalism/foia requests) is open for debate, but slow(ish) government is essential to the process of checks and balances.