4 ms·
Chesterton's Fence strikes again - every so often, someone has the bright idea of uninventing all the rules for just long enough that all of the reasons the rul
by stuartjohnson12 4y ago
Chesterton's Fence strikes again - every so often, someone has the bright idea of uninventing all the rules for just long enough that all of the reasons the rules were invented in the first place can regress back into existence.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoI sometimes think that the absence of experience is an issue. Many of these Jurassic-scale disasters are ones that make me wonder "Were there any adults in the room, when this decision was made?" I suspect the answer is frequently "No."
- hotpotamus 4y agoThey don't call it "the nanny state" for nothing.
- mrguyorama 4y agoWhy would these companies care if their nonsense makes other people suffer when they still profit from that suffering?
- throwayyy479087 4y agoDing ding ding. It sounds like everyone knew the grift, but didn’t care because they got paid. Meanwhile they’re profiting off some 13 year old getting raped in a Motel 6. Not that great!
- boeingUH60 4y agoThe crypto sector explained in a short sentence..
- draw_down 4y ago[dead]
- olalonde 4y agoIf I had a penny whenever someone incorrectly referenced that principle in response to a libertarian's desire to eliminate or disregard regulations. Naturally, they understand the reasons for the regulations' existence, they just hold a different viewpoint.
- lanstin 4y agoThe corpus of libertarian writing in social media about crypto and banking regulations and fractional reserve banking and FDIC would tend to disprove your statement about libertarian beliefs. No doubt in some academic tower of excellence, the arguments are tightly wound and full of data, but it isn’t propagating to the common discourse.
- olalonde 4y agoI meant to reference Block CEO Jack Dorsey in my comment. I'm pretty sure he knows the intended objectives behind AML regulations and so on. I doubt that he would go "oh! I didn't think about this" if someone were to explain their purpose to him. Plus, in case that was your point, Chesterton's Fence is about a lack of reasoning about the purpose of the rules, not a bad reasoning.
- kolbe 4y agoAt the Dorsey level, the "rule" could be something entirely different. The existing industry rule could be that human review is necessary to comply with AML laws. Dorsey thinks technology can take care of it while cutting costs, totally unaware of the decades and decades where existing money transfer businesses experimented with it, and saw how it didn't work.