Comment by ignoramous
3 years ago
Well, sometimes you have to tear down the fences to bring about meaningful change based on first principles. Otherwise, we are only empowering the gatekeepers who have all the incentive in the world to persist with the status quo.
Tearing down fences without pausing long enough to at least figure out why they are there is how you get gatekeepers to begin with.
Its entirely possible that the fence was put there for an extremely valid reason, or that you must mitigate a separate issue before removing it. This assessment can be completed using a first principles approach, and the fence can be removed afterwards. Removing the fence then learning why it was there can be a painful experience for you and those around you.
The point isn’t to never tear down the fence the point is that you should wait to do so until you know why it’s there.
The reason the fence exists should be written down, ideally as close to the fence as possible. It needs to be easy to determine why the fence is there.
If someone puts up a fence without explaining why it's there, they deserve to have their fence torn down.
I don’t understand this word “deserve”. It’s not about who gets the blame when the coyotes show up at night and kill all your chickens. It’s about making sure you don’t tear down fences that are, unbeknownst to you, protecting your chickens.
> If someone puts up a fence without explaining why it's there, they deserve to have their fence torn down.
Uhh no, because your punishment rampage will be putting other things in danger.
First, understand why the fence is there. THEN tear it down if it makes sense to do so. That's the whole point, and it was thoroughly explained in the article.
I think you read past "sometimes" and "based on first principles".
This in no way contradicts Chesterton's point, in fact he explicitly brings it up. He is not calling for an end to fence demolition, he is rather calling for common sense investigation into why the fence is there.
[dead]