3 ms·

I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding. In the case

I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding. In the case of unions, there is an adversarial party, so it is possible that gains could eventually be clawed back, but large, long-standing unions (like other organizations) do have a tendency towards bureaucratic bloat that might make someone take a position that resembles "I support the unions we don't have but not the ones we do".

adamrezich 3y ago
> I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding. what incentive mechanism could possibly facilitate this? because without one, it's not going to happen, whether you or anyone thinks it "should" or not. this is an open question that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. when presented with any sort of "anti-x" organization (for example), I always wonder: why should I trust this organization as having the definitive position on whether their stated goals have ever been achieved? it seems brazenly obvious that, without any sort of incentive to the contrary, they'll just keep moving the x goalpost such that they can claim x is still an issue, worthy of there being an "anti-x" organization to fight it. this seems like quite the predicament, because obviously sometimes there are xes that need to be opposed by organized groups of people—but how can they possibly be held accountable for remaining on-mission, and, more importantly, for being an authoritative source on societal progress with regards to x?
friend_and_foe 3y ago
I feel that way about a lot of organizations. Unless there's an ongoing need, they should fold up and be done. Corporations too. If this were how it worked, we'd all get products that last forever passed around as heirlooms. Unfortunately everything living is afraid of death, and these organizations will come up with an ongoing need, real or not.

adamrezich 3y ago

> I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding. what incentive mechanism could possibly facilitate this? because without one, it's not going to happen, whether you or anyone thinks it "should" or not. this is an open question that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. when presented with any sort of "anti-x" organization (for example), I always wonder: why should I trust this organization as having the definitive position on whether their stated goals have ever been achieved? it seems brazenly obvious that, without any sort of incentive to the contrary, they'll just keep moving the x goalpost such that they can claim x is still an issue, worthy of there being an "anti-x" organization to fight it. this seems like quite the predicament, because obviously sometimes there are xes that need to be opposed by organized groups of people—but how can they possibly be held accountable for remaining on-mission, and, more importantly, for being an authoritative source on societal progress with regards to x?

friend_and_foe 3y ago

I feel that way about a lot of organizations. Unless there's an ongoing need, they should fold up and be done. Corporations too. If this were how it worked, we'd all get products that last forever passed around as heirlooms. Unfortunately everything living is afraid of death, and these organizations will come up with an ongoing need, real or not.