5 ms·

People who cite Chesterton's Fence love to pick an arbitrary point in time when their pet fence existed as the starting point. If we take the birth of the fede

People who cite Chesterton's Fence love to pick an arbitrary point in time when their pet fence existed as the starting point. If we take the birth of the federal government or the USCG as our start point, it is these type of committees that actually moved Chesterton's Fence

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
That's not how Chesterton's Fence works? The point isn't that the fence was always there. It's that people who try to dismantle the fence never bothered to learn why the fence was put up in the first place. The fence could have been put up yesterday but if you never even bother to learn why the fence was put up before trying to remove it, that's still Chesterton's Fence.
ianmcgowan 2y ago
Chesterton's point wasn't that the fence should never move (which is what you seem to be implying), but that it should only be moved (or technically removed) when you understand why it was initially put in place. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is bloat and over-regulation, but most of the laws and regulations on the books are in response to a bad thing happening. It's kind of like a legacy code base - just deleting the repo and starting over from scratch is usually not the best idea, it takes some careful refactoring and judicious tests to move in the right direction. It's sort of an interesting idea - what are "tests" in the context of the legal/regulatory framework? The constitution? The judiciary?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  My point is that a fence existed (Fence #1). Someone moved Fence #1 (by making these DHS committees), which we will call Fence #2. We are now removing Fence #2 back to Fence #1, which is more Chesterton-y by virtue of being there first.
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    The fence is a restriction. i.e. a regulation or series of rules. These committees make those rules. It's not just a state of being. Getting rid of a fence doesn't mean there's magically an older fence you've moved to. It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Removing the fence is exactly that, getting rid of the fence. There is no before fence. You've just removed the fence.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      >It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Fence #1: the existing set of rules defining a more limited US Federal Government and a more limited USCG and a more limited DHS Fence #2: removed limits on Feds, expanded those organizations, placed limits on [insert economic activity] Whatever your opinion on the wisdom/value of this, this move by the DHS is an attempt to replace Fence #2 with the original Fence #1. Put in your terminology, they are replacing a set of rules (expansive gov) with a different set of rules (limited gov). Put in my terminology, this is correcting the original violation of Chesterton's Fence.
      - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
        The issue is that fence 2 doesn't serve the same purpose as fence 1. Fence 1 is that we have the NCFSAC that serves to ensure the safety of commercial fishing. Fence 2 is no fence because we don't want to limit economic activity. That's by definition removing the fence, not moving it. Safety policy is written in blood. By getting rid of the committee that writes that policy you aren't moving the fence, you are just getting rid of it and letting the blood that chesterton's fence once stopped to flow again.
        theultdev 2y ago
        Now do before 2018 when the NCFSAC didn't exist... It's simply returning to the status quo of 6 years ago. The committee should be producing results. We have data of incidents: https://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.php https://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.php There's virtually no change since 2018 (various incidents go up and down but stay similar from 2018-2023).
mcculley 2y ago
I did not pick an arbitrary point. I replied to specific incorrect assertions about regulation in general.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago

That's not how Chesterton's Fence works? The point isn't that the fence was always there. It's that people who try to dismantle the fence never bothered to learn why the fence was put up in the first place. The fence could have been put up yesterday but if you never even bother to learn why the fence was put up before trying to remove it, that's still Chesterton's Fence.

ianmcgowan 2y ago

Chesterton's point wasn't that the fence should never move (which is what you seem to be implying), but that it should only be moved (or technically removed) when you understand why it was initially put in place. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is bloat and over-regulation, but most of the laws and regulations on the books are in response to a bad thing happening. It's kind of like a legacy code base - just deleting the repo and starting over from scratch is usually not the best idea, it takes some careful refactoring and judicious tests to move in the right direction. It's sort of an interesting idea - what are "tests" in the context of the legal/regulatory framework? The constitution? The judiciary?

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
My point is that a fence existed (Fence #1). Someone moved Fence #1 (by making these DHS committees), which we will call Fence #2. We are now removing Fence #2 back to Fence #1, which is more Chesterton-y by virtue of being there first.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  The fence is a restriction. i.e. a regulation or series of rules. These committees make those rules. It's not just a state of being. Getting rid of a fence doesn't mean there's magically an older fence you've moved to. It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Removing the fence is exactly that, getting rid of the fence. There is no before fence. You've just removed the fence.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    >It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Fence #1: the existing set of rules defining a more limited US Federal Government and a more limited USCG and a more limited DHS Fence #2: removed limits on Feds, expanded those organizations, placed limits on [insert economic activity] Whatever your opinion on the wisdom/value of this, this move by the DHS is an attempt to replace Fence #2 with the original Fence #1. Put in your terminology, they are replacing a set of rules (expansive gov) with a different set of rules (limited gov). Put in my terminology, this is correcting the original violation of Chesterton's Fence.
    - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
      The issue is that fence 2 doesn't serve the same purpose as fence 1. Fence 1 is that we have the NCFSAC that serves to ensure the safety of commercial fishing. Fence 2 is no fence because we don't want to limit economic activity. That's by definition removing the fence, not moving it. Safety policy is written in blood. By getting rid of the committee that writes that policy you aren't moving the fence, you are just getting rid of it and letting the blood that chesterton's fence once stopped to flow again.
      - theultdev 2y ago
        Now do before 2018 when the NCFSAC didn't exist... It's simply returning to the status quo of 6 years ago. The committee should be producing results. We have data of incidents: https://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.php https://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.php There's virtually no change since 2018 (various incidents go up and down but stay similar from 2018-2023).

mcculley 2y ago

I did not pick an arbitrary point. I replied to specific incorrect assertions about regulation in general.