4 ms·
Does anybody actually think we shouldn't change anything if we can't figure out what the original reason after a good faith effort? That just seems like a straw
by winstonewert 5y ago
Does anybody actually think we shouldn't change anything if we can't figure out what the original reason after a good faith effort? That just seems like a straw man that simply isn't what Chesteron's fence is about.
- vivegi 5y agoIt does happen quite often, especially when groups (n>1) are involved in decision making and the parties don't all agree on the causes or have divergent views or have competing vested interests. eg: UN decision making or Climate change action planning etc., When this occurs, they dig in firmly in their positions and either argue for keeping the fence as-is (maintain status quo) or taking it down (action bias).
- winstonewert 5y agoExcept that's a totally different scenario, where the different parties have different interests and thus don't agree on whether to keep the fence, not one where we don't know why the fence exists.
- slowhand09 5y agoI may be reading your point incorrectly, but you mention no reason FOR a change, except change. I think that is fine on your own property, but wasteful when it comes to property that is public or common. If the change has an associated cost, on public or common property, change is usually passed to those public or common owners, often when they don't want it. Bureaucrats famously build things just to associate themselves with "getting things done".
- winstonewert 5y agoI don't understand what your point is. Sure, people of abuse shared property, tragedy of the commons and all. What does that have to do with the fence?