4 ms·

When someone comes in to slash everything, they generally don't bother understanding what they are slashing. This is the same as when a company hires someone to

When someone comes in to slash everything, they generally don't bother understanding what they are slashing. This is the same as when a company hires someone to come in and cut costs, generally everything, good or bad, gets cut. That's what's happening on the US federal level right now. Eventually some things will be picked back up when someone realizes that it wasn't a good idea to stop it, but most things are just going to be wasted effort.

beardyw 2y ago
Chesterton's Fence "There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it"
- tptacek 2y ago
  I don't think Chesterton has much to say about DHS, which is relatively new.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lutger 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      …who are you quoting or paraphrasing? Parables aren’t an argument on their own.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        This is the original text written by Chesterton that describes the concept people refer to as "Chesterton's Fence" but with the word fence replaced with "department of homeland security".
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Thanks.
      - Lutger 2y ago
        > I don't think Chesterton has much to say about DHS, which is relatively new. I'm responding to this statement. I thought it was pretty clear that the quote is still applicable, especially if you can read it applied to DHS. The comment I replied to was a response to a comment with the original quote. Its called Chesterton's Fence. Chestertons Fence is a device or principle. It is not actually about a fence. As such, it still applies to, or pretends to apply to cases in the future, of which Chesterton could not be aware. I assumed this demonstration was clear enough, but apparently I did something wrong here. Anybody care to explain why I have been flagged?
  - sneak 2y ago
    …and entirely a kneejerk reaction to 9/11, enabling a massive public-private wealth transfer graft under the false pretense of national security.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > a massive public-private wealth transfer I’ll say this as someone who’s moderately wealthy: this administration is a massive wealth transfer to those with either capital or connections to it. Taking apart these committees means less-regulated telecoms, infrastructure and financial services. If you’re in those spaces, this is great for you. The size of each of those industries entirely dwarfs the military-industrial bogeyman, which is largely just being transferred from one set of owners (Boeing, Lockheed, et cetera) to another (Musk, Bezos, Lucky, et cetera)
      - sneak 2y ago
        Sure, but DHS long predates this admin. The list of giants suckling at the public teat is huge (Rapiscan, anyone?) and spans many different administrations. One possible upside of the current situation is that the very obvious corporate ownership of the federal government is dropping the “emperor has clothes” pretense. We are ever closer to simply paying taxes to Buy-N-Large. If people don’t like it, at least now they can have a practical conversation about it (Luigi notwithstanding). It’s sort of like when Snowden showed us how fucked we were/are.
    - nradov 2y ago
      The 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been the triggering event but bringing a bunch of related federal departments and agencies under a single umbrella in DHS was probably a net positive. The previous structure was tremendously inefficient with a lot of duplication of effort and time wasted on interdepartmental coordination. Obviously graft should be addressed but it's unlikely the total graft was any lower before 2002.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    However, DHS was almost entirely formed from existing departments and agencies that were merely rehoused under a new structure, so Chesterton's Fence definitely applies to all of those. Even CISA, which is one of the newest elements, is now almost a decade old with a lot of accumulated expertise and experience.
  - sympil 2y ago
    The newness of DHS has nothing to do with whether or not Chesterton’s Fence applies.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Does the metaphor actually include the age of the fence? I always thought the idea is just to understand why the fence is there before removing it, regardless of its age. In theory, it should be easier to understand the reasoning behind the existence of newer fences, but the idea is still to do that step first... I mean, clearly some people just reject this entire idea as creating too much friction, and I can often see their point!, but I think we can at least avoid saying "it's a good concept, but it just doesn't apply in this case", and be honest about just rejecting the concept.
  - addicted 2y ago
    You seem to have Chesterton’s fence completely backwards. Chesterton’s fence can never be an argument against creating something new. The whole point of it is that if you come across a fence then that was the result of a conscious human decision and subsequent effort, which strongly implies there was a reason it was created, and until you understand what that reason was, you’re taking a risk by destroying the fence. But if there is “nothing” and you’re creating something new, Chesterton’s fence doesn’t apply because the lack of existence of anything was not the result of intentional human design and effort, therefore there’s no evidence that the lack of existence of something “had a reason for it”.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Read The Drift From Domesticity, where this whole "fence" thing comes from. It's an appeal to (small-c) conservatism, to respect and understand traditions and norms. It is not a logical rule about it being improper to alter absolutely anything without a clear understanding of its origins. You can disagree with me about its applicability to the newest cabinet branch, but our disagreement isn't rooted in me not knowing the metaphor.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      There is no creation without destruction, so yes Chesterton's fence almost certainly applies to an act of creation. In other words, there is no "nothing". We will always be playing in a sandbox someone else played in before us.
- kristianbrigman 2y ago
  If said fence was across a road that a school bus was hurtling towards at 60 mph… you’d stop asking these questions and remove it (and maybe put it back after you’ve solved the other emergency). Several (of the new government) have expressed belief that the government is headed towards a catastrophic debt overload. In their view, emergency relief is necessary. Not arguing for or against this view, but that seems to be what people voted for. I am a big fan of Chestertons fence but it doesn’t always apply.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Republican strategy since the 1980s had been 'starve the beast'. That strategy is the deny actual funding and instead create debt load in order to kill the government, support for government programs, and destroy trust in government.
  - javawizard 2y ago
    I'll counter that it does, allowing that it's perfectly fine to adjust the threshold of certainty about a particular thing's purpose to suit the circumstances. If that fence is stopping the school bus from driving off the edge of a cliff, for example, I would absolutely not want to remove it - and you can bet I'll spare a modicum of thought to make sure that's not the case before I yank it out of the way.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  I liked his story about the street lamp that a mob of people wanted to take down. A monk started to suggest debating the merits of Light, which seemed like an annoying and esoteric point until the mob knocked down the street lamp and everyone was left to argue in the dark. That may be an analogy to where we are now. A related point is, it’s pretty easy to find people unhappy with current systems. But if you ask them what to replace those systems with, you’ll often find that coalition dissolves.
potato3732842 2y ago
The goal of these people isn't to understand. They don't care. They know they're slashing important stuff. It's a numbers game to them. It's like marking read all your emails. The important stuff will pop back up.
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  It's like the twitter thing. You start shutting off servers until someone says, "ouch it hurts". Then you turn it back on if you care. You then end up with less servers than you started.
  - Bhilai 2y ago
    and Twitter is bleeding money like anything, unable to retain users and advertisers. You may end up with less servers but not necessarily a stable and functional system.
    - sillyfluke 2y ago
      Twitter is bleeding money in part because the owner refused to play ball with advertisers moderation demands, and the majority who don't see any downtime on twitter consider it more than "stable and functional". And for the owner, who probably thinks he's co-piloting the strongest government in the world right now and attributes part of that success to the platform he controls, it is functioning magnificently. ..and that is all that matters to him.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      It makes sense when you see Twitter less like a traditional business like Apple (whose goal is to turn a profit) and more like a means to other political ends. Twitter punched way above its weight in cultural influence given its relatively small user base. Being profitable is a perk, but not the goal.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        Exactly right. Twitter is a 2x kingmaker (2016 and 2024). The current owner likely thinks that the bleed is worthwhile.
sanderjd 2y ago
Chesterton's fence is always lost on populists.
troyvit 2y ago
The one wrinkle in this, to me, is that Trump spent four years as President already. Full disclosure: I despise the guy and wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, BUT ... what if he saw a bunch of waste in his first run and therefore does understand what he's slashing? Personally I don't believe that or want to believe that and would rather chalk it up to neo-toddlerism, but there's a chance right?
- rideontime 2y ago
  Considering the surprise he showed on video when being told what he's signing, I don't believe he knows what he's slashing, let alone understands it.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Haha I almost wish I'd seen it.
generalizations 2y ago
I heard there's going to be those teams of hr+legal+engineer doing the cutting - the only reason I can guess there'd be an engineer in the mix is if they do intend to understand what they're cutting.

beardyw 2y ago

Chesterton's Fence "There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it"

tptacek 2y ago
I don't think Chesterton has much to say about DHS, which is relatively new.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Lutger 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    …who are you quoting or paraphrasing? Parables aren’t an argument on their own.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      This is the original text written by Chesterton that describes the concept people refer to as "Chesterton's Fence" but with the word fence replaced with "department of homeland security".
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Thanks.
    - Lutger 2y ago
      > I don't think Chesterton has much to say about DHS, which is relatively new. I'm responding to this statement. I thought it was pretty clear that the quote is still applicable, especially if you can read it applied to DHS. The comment I replied to was a response to a comment with the original quote. Its called Chesterton's Fence. Chestertons Fence is a device or principle. It is not actually about a fence. As such, it still applies to, or pretends to apply to cases in the future, of which Chesterton could not be aware. I assumed this demonstration was clear enough, but apparently I did something wrong here. Anybody care to explain why I have been flagged?
- sneak 2y ago
  …and entirely a kneejerk reaction to 9/11, enabling a massive public-private wealth transfer graft under the false pretense of national security.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > a massive public-private wealth transfer I’ll say this as someone who’s moderately wealthy: this administration is a massive wealth transfer to those with either capital or connections to it. Taking apart these committees means less-regulated telecoms, infrastructure and financial services. If you’re in those spaces, this is great for you. The size of each of those industries entirely dwarfs the military-industrial bogeyman, which is largely just being transferred from one set of owners (Boeing, Lockheed, et cetera) to another (Musk, Bezos, Lucky, et cetera)
    - sneak 2y ago
      Sure, but DHS long predates this admin. The list of giants suckling at the public teat is huge (Rapiscan, anyone?) and spans many different administrations. One possible upside of the current situation is that the very obvious corporate ownership of the federal government is dropping the “emperor has clothes” pretense. We are ever closer to simply paying taxes to Buy-N-Large. If people don’t like it, at least now they can have a practical conversation about it (Luigi notwithstanding). It’s sort of like when Snowden showed us how fucked we were/are.
  - nradov 2y ago
    The 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been the triggering event but bringing a bunch of related federal departments and agencies under a single umbrella in DHS was probably a net positive. The previous structure was tremendously inefficient with a lot of duplication of effort and time wasted on interdepartmental coordination. Obviously graft should be addressed but it's unlikely the total graft was any lower before 2002.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  However, DHS was almost entirely formed from existing departments and agencies that were merely rehoused under a new structure, so Chesterton's Fence definitely applies to all of those. Even CISA, which is one of the newest elements, is now almost a decade old with a lot of accumulated expertise and experience.
- sympil 2y ago
  The newness of DHS has nothing to do with whether or not Chesterton’s Fence applies.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Does the metaphor actually include the age of the fence? I always thought the idea is just to understand why the fence is there before removing it, regardless of its age. In theory, it should be easier to understand the reasoning behind the existence of newer fences, but the idea is still to do that step first... I mean, clearly some people just reject this entire idea as creating too much friction, and I can often see their point!, but I think we can at least avoid saying "it's a good concept, but it just doesn't apply in this case", and be honest about just rejecting the concept.
- addicted 2y ago
  You seem to have Chesterton’s fence completely backwards. Chesterton’s fence can never be an argument against creating something new. The whole point of it is that if you come across a fence then that was the result of a conscious human decision and subsequent effort, which strongly implies there was a reason it was created, and until you understand what that reason was, you’re taking a risk by destroying the fence. But if there is “nothing” and you’re creating something new, Chesterton’s fence doesn’t apply because the lack of existence of anything was not the result of intentional human design and effort, therefore there’s no evidence that the lack of existence of something “had a reason for it”.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Read The Drift From Domesticity, where this whole "fence" thing comes from. It's an appeal to (small-c) conservatism, to respect and understand traditions and norms. It is not a logical rule about it being improper to alter absolutely anything without a clear understanding of its origins. You can disagree with me about its applicability to the newest cabinet branch, but our disagreement isn't rooted in me not knowing the metaphor.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    There is no creation without destruction, so yes Chesterton's fence almost certainly applies to an act of creation. In other words, there is no "nothing". We will always be playing in a sandbox someone else played in before us.
kristianbrigman 2y ago
If said fence was across a road that a school bus was hurtling towards at 60 mph… you’d stop asking these questions and remove it (and maybe put it back after you’ve solved the other emergency). Several (of the new government) have expressed belief that the government is headed towards a catastrophic debt overload. In their view, emergency relief is necessary. Not arguing for or against this view, but that seems to be what people voted for. I am a big fan of Chestertons fence but it doesn’t always apply.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Republican strategy since the 1980s had been 'starve the beast'. That strategy is the deny actual funding and instead create debt load in order to kill the government, support for government programs, and destroy trust in government.
- javawizard 2y ago
  I'll counter that it does, allowing that it's perfectly fine to adjust the threshold of certainty about a particular thing's purpose to suit the circumstances. If that fence is stopping the school bus from driving off the edge of a cliff, for example, I would absolutely not want to remove it - and you can bet I'll spare a modicum of thought to make sure that's not the case before I yank it out of the way.
janalsncm 2y ago
I liked his story about the street lamp that a mob of people wanted to take down. A monk started to suggest debating the merits of Light, which seemed like an annoying and esoteric point until the mob knocked down the street lamp and everyone was left to argue in the dark. That may be an analogy to where we are now. A related point is, it’s pretty easy to find people unhappy with current systems. But if you ask them what to replace those systems with, you’ll often find that coalition dissolves.

potato3732842 2y ago

The goal of these people isn't to understand. They don't care. They know they're slashing important stuff. It's a numbers game to them. It's like marking read all your emails. The important stuff will pop back up.

sillyfluke 2y ago
It's like the twitter thing. You start shutting off servers until someone says, "ouch it hurts". Then you turn it back on if you care. You then end up with less servers than you started.
- Bhilai 2y ago
  and Twitter is bleeding money like anything, unable to retain users and advertisers. You may end up with less servers but not necessarily a stable and functional system.
  - sillyfluke 2y ago
    Twitter is bleeding money in part because the owner refused to play ball with advertisers moderation demands, and the majority who don't see any downtime on twitter consider it more than "stable and functional". And for the owner, who probably thinks he's co-piloting the strongest government in the world right now and attributes part of that success to the platform he controls, it is functioning magnificently. ..and that is all that matters to him.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    It makes sense when you see Twitter less like a traditional business like Apple (whose goal is to turn a profit) and more like a means to other political ends. Twitter punched way above its weight in cultural influence given its relatively small user base. Being profitable is a perk, but not the goal.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Exactly right. Twitter is a 2x kingmaker (2016 and 2024). The current owner likely thinks that the bleed is worthwhile.

sanderjd 2y ago

Chesterton's fence is always lost on populists.

troyvit 2y ago

The one wrinkle in this, to me, is that Trump spent four years as President already. Full disclosure: I despise the guy and wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, BUT ... what if he saw a bunch of waste in his first run and therefore does understand what he's slashing? Personally I don't believe that or want to believe that and would rather chalk it up to neo-toddlerism, but there's a chance right?

rideontime 2y ago
Considering the surprise he showed on video when being told what he's signing, I don't believe he knows what he's slashing, let alone understands it.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Haha I almost wish I'd seen it.

generalizations 2y ago

I heard there's going to be those teams of hr+legal+engineer doing the cutting - the only reason I can guess there'd be an engineer in the mix is if they do intend to understand what they're cutting.