3 ms·

> only collapse can create a blank slate. It seems like the real problem is finding a way to address that. We've seen this play out over and over. Take someth

> only collapse can create a blank slate. It seems like the real problem is finding a way to address that. We've seen this play out over and over. Take something like building and zoning codes. They start out doing something worthwhile, like requiring fire exits. But soon you have a bureaucracy micromanaging everything, imposing minimum parking requirements even on a building sitting on top of a subway stop, imposing minimum lot sizes or density restrictions, requiring unnecessarily costly or labor-intensive construction methods at the behest of device makers or trade unions, etc. What you need is a mechanism, something like checks and balances or a challenge process that allows any rule to be repealed if it doesn't still have enough votes to pass in every branch, to inhibit that process of ossification and corruption and clear out the cruft accumulated by its past operation.

touisteur 2y ago
Maybe Frank Herbert got you covered, with the Bureau of Sabotage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tactful_Saboteur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tactful_Saboteur :-)
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The problem isn't so much that you need to throw sand in the gears. We've eroded some of the checks there used to be (e.g. moving to US Senators having statewide elections instead of being elected by state legislatures) and maybe we should put them back, but in general the system of checks and balances works kind of okay. The issue is that it's not perfect, and it's never going to be perfect, so you're occasionally going to have things get past the gauntlet and make it into law when they shouldn't. And over time those things accumulate. So what you need is a functioning process for clearing out the cruft even once it's already there. Something like, make it much easier to repeal rules than enact them.
DarkNova6 2y ago
> What you need is a mechanism, something like checks and balances or a challenge process that allows any rule to be repealed if it doesn't still have enough votes to pass in every branch, to inhibit that process of ossification and corruption and clear out the cruft accumulated by its past operation. I agree in the sense that some way of "caretaking" is absolutely necessary. Like in a badly maintained IT-system, many managers think you can just keep piling stuff ontop of the old system and you can just happily going forward forever. But of course that is a terrible misunderstanding. In an IT-system, you either restart from scratch or start a refactor. I think these are the only options here either. This needs talent and money, something the public services have been massively drained of. You can't make a system more lean and efficient by cutting costs, you mot make investments. If you involve Civil Servants, they will tell you exactly what kind of issues they are facing each day processing official documents. Ideally, you'd start a digital transformation of public services and also streamline the legal cruft at the same time. But the problem is that much of this "cruft" is there on purpose because somebody profits. Such as the impossible Zoning Rules in California to prohibit any additional housing space... because that would make housing more affordable and lower their prices.

touisteur 2y ago

Maybe Frank Herbert got you covered, with the Bureau of Sabotage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tactful_Saboteur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tactful_Saboteur :-)

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The problem isn't so much that you need to throw sand in the gears. We've eroded some of the checks there used to be (e.g. moving to US Senators having statewide elections instead of being elected by state legislatures) and maybe we should put them back, but in general the system of checks and balances works kind of okay. The issue is that it's not perfect, and it's never going to be perfect, so you're occasionally going to have things get past the gauntlet and make it into law when they shouldn't. And over time those things accumulate. So what you need is a functioning process for clearing out the cruft even once it's already there. Something like, make it much easier to repeal rules than enact them.

DarkNova6 2y ago

> What you need is a mechanism, something like checks and balances or a challenge process that allows any rule to be repealed if it doesn't still have enough votes to pass in every branch, to inhibit that process of ossification and corruption and clear out the cruft accumulated by its past operation. I agree in the sense that some way of "caretaking" is absolutely necessary. Like in a badly maintained IT-system, many managers think you can just keep piling stuff ontop of the old system and you can just happily going forward forever. But of course that is a terrible misunderstanding. In an IT-system, you either restart from scratch or start a refactor. I think these are the only options here either. This needs talent and money, something the public services have been massively drained of. You can't make a system more lean and efficient by cutting costs, you mot make investments. If you involve Civil Servants, they will tell you exactly what kind of issues they are facing each day processing official documents. Ideally, you'd start a digital transformation of public services and also streamline the legal cruft at the same time. But the problem is that much of this "cruft" is there on purpose because somebody profits. Such as the impossible Zoning Rules in California to prohibit any additional housing space... because that would make housing more affordable and lower their prices.