3 ms·

I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence: "Chesterton's fence" is the principl

I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence: "Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_... Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason. I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.

valiant55 9mo ago
The powers that be have always saught wealth. At some point they gained enough power to start usurping the law that was supposed to keep them in check.
- mcphage 9mo ago
  We should have made it clearer that monied interests have a choice: be kept in check by the law, or by the guillotine.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - valiant55 9mo ago
    I'm too entralled by TikTok to build a guillotine.
    - mcphage 9mo ago
      Is that why the TikTok ban fell through?! …figures.
  - elzbardico 9mo ago
    The problem is, the guillotine solution to regulation only becomes feasible after the monied interest have thoroughly fucked society, to a level that would make living as blue-collar working in Detroit downtown today feel like being a banking executive living in Geneva.
    - mcphage 9mo ago
      Do you believe that the monied interests will stop on their own before we get there?
master_crab 9mo ago
This seems like the contrarian argument to libertarianism. A libertarian might claim it is orthogonal to it in theory, but in practice it is very much relevant to a “break all the walls down” ideology.
BurningFrog 9mo ago
Maybe, like myself, you're just aging into being a bit of a conservative.
- keiferski 9mo ago
  Eh, I don’t think not wanting gambling and amoral behavior to consume society makes me a conservative in any real sense of the word. More just common sense pragmatism, is how I’d put it.
  - protonbob 9mo ago
    Amoral by what standard? That’s where the conservatism comes in.
    - keiferski 9mo ago
      Amoral, not immoral.
  - kelipso 9mo ago
    The Chesterton’s Fence argument is an argument against progressive social changes, no?
    - keiferski 9mo ago
      No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed. It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met. I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.
      - tbrownaw 9mo ago
        > I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one. The other meaning of "conservative", the one that's opposite "reckless". It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive.
CodingJeebus 9mo ago
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason. Moneyed interests saw a business opportunity, simple as that. Economic investment is becoming highly concentrated towards high-growth, high-risk opportunities and gambling has long thrived in the black market while staying current with technology. > except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing. And this will only become more true as the economy continues to worsen. Economic downturns and market collapses favor the elite.
andrepd 9mo ago
> I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing. Hit the nail on the head and these are my thoughts exactly. I don't really want to be the guy that thinks his time is extra-ordinary (cue fake quote of Socrates saying "kids these days have no manners"), but... maybe it is? For me it's like people don't even feel the need to pretend anymore. Selfish geopolitical calculations and greed have dictated all actors' actions in the 20th, that isn't new, but at least then there was a need to appear to abide by laws or to uphold human rights, even to strive for the eradication of war (and often it wasn't a disguise; people actually cared about those things). States used to care or at least appear to care about progress, betterment, social improvement, moral improvement. Today? All any government speaks of is raw GDP growth %. And so gambling is pushed on TVs, streets, subways, kids' entertainment... The idea that a government of a nation would strive for the moral well-being of its citizens (by heavily curtailing gambling for example) seems positively quaint in 2026. Anyway I'm tired, excuse the incoherent ramble.
tbrownaw 9mo ago
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason. The things I've seen have been either "it's not right to tell me not to" or "non-participants can get useful information by observing the odds". What I haven't seen is claims that it won't be net-harmful to participants.

valiant55 9mo ago

The powers that be have always saught wealth. At some point they gained enough power to start usurping the law that was supposed to keep them in check.

mcphage 9mo ago
We should have made it clearer that monied interests have a choice: be kept in check by the law, or by the guillotine.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- valiant55 9mo ago
  I'm too entralled by TikTok to build a guillotine.
  - mcphage 9mo ago
    Is that why the TikTok ban fell through?! …figures.
- elzbardico 9mo ago
  The problem is, the guillotine solution to regulation only becomes feasible after the monied interest have thoroughly fucked society, to a level that would make living as blue-collar working in Detroit downtown today feel like being a banking executive living in Geneva.
  - mcphage 9mo ago
    Do you believe that the monied interests will stop on their own before we get there?

master_crab 9mo ago

This seems like the contrarian argument to libertarianism. A libertarian might claim it is orthogonal to it in theory, but in practice it is very much relevant to a “break all the walls down” ideology.

BurningFrog 9mo ago

Maybe, like myself, you're just aging into being a bit of a conservative.

keiferski 9mo ago
Eh, I don’t think not wanting gambling and amoral behavior to consume society makes me a conservative in any real sense of the word. More just common sense pragmatism, is how I’d put it.
- protonbob 9mo ago
  Amoral by what standard? That’s where the conservatism comes in.
  - keiferski 9mo ago
    Amoral, not immoral.
- kelipso 9mo ago
  The Chesterton’s Fence argument is an argument against progressive social changes, no?
  - keiferski 9mo ago
    No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed. It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met. I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.
    - tbrownaw 9mo ago
      > I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one. The other meaning of "conservative", the one that's opposite "reckless". It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive.

CodingJeebus 9mo ago

> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason. Moneyed interests saw a business opportunity, simple as that. Economic investment is becoming highly concentrated towards high-growth, high-risk opportunities and gambling has long thrived in the black market while staying current with technology. > except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing. And this will only become more true as the economy continues to worsen. Economic downturns and market collapses favor the elite.

andrepd 9mo ago

> I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing. Hit the nail on the head and these are my thoughts exactly. I don't really want to be the guy that thinks his time is extra-ordinary (cue fake quote of Socrates saying "kids these days have no manners"), but... maybe it is? For me it's like people don't even feel the need to pretend anymore. Selfish geopolitical calculations and greed have dictated all actors' actions in the 20th, that isn't new, but at least then there was a need to appear to abide by laws or to uphold human rights, even to strive for the eradication of war (and often it wasn't a disguise; people actually cared about those things). States used to care or at least appear to care about progress, betterment, social improvement, moral improvement. Today? All any government speaks of is raw GDP growth %. And so gambling is pushed on TVs, streets, subways, kids' entertainment... The idea that a government of a nation would strive for the moral well-being of its citizens (by heavily curtailing gambling for example) seems positively quaint in 2026. Anyway I'm tired, excuse the incoherent ramble.

tbrownaw 9mo ago

> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason. The things I've seen have been either "it's not right to tell me not to" or "non-participants can get useful information by observing the odds". What I haven't seen is claims that it won't be net-harmful to participants.