Hacker Read

adrianratnapala · 2016-06-15 05:27:06+00:00

This is circular. You are saying that we should have policy B, partly because A is too expensive. Why is A too expensive? Because of policiy B!

JonoW | karma 479 | avg karma 2.1 · | 2011-05-10 14:24:00+00:00

This seems like such a hugely expensive policy to enforce for what problem exactly?

Jarwain | karma 1171 | avg karma 1.84 · | 2022-10-24 08:16:50

I think both of y'all are right in different circumstances; imo a good policy would handle both cases

_jal | karma 13880 | avg karma 4.13 · | 2021-07-22 09:34:06

I'm trying to take what you're saying seriously, and think through how it would work in the real world.

You're just repeating that you think some things "should" be the case. If they were, how would that work, how could it go wrong, what are the costs and benefits relative to other ways of achieving the same goals?

Policy is more than random assertions that feel right.

reply

ignormies | karma 236 | avg karma 5.49 · | 2023-12-04 16:00:25

I'd argue that _both_ should necessitate policy changes. The argument that there shouldn't be changes for one if there aren't changes for another is a flawed one.

brookst | karma 8408 | avg karma 3.08 · | 2023-05-17 08:53:29

More clearly said than I managed, yep.

But I suppose it comes down to priorities. If good policy is less important than contradicting P, I suppose that approach makes sense.

reply

tomjen3 | karma 9638 | avg karma 1.0 · | 2010-08-30 12:18:17

While that sounds reasonable, by your suggestion no policy can ever be changed if it is found to be too expensive to complete.

Thats no good either.

reply

panick21_ | karma 6073 | avg karma 1.48 · | 2024-06-13 15:07:59

If the policy was the opposite you could also argue that. Its basically a fundamental problem of government, whatever the outcome.

You have to be way more specific when you want to actually be insightful about the topic.

reply

Drbble | karma 874 | avg karma 0.95 · | 2012-03-05 11:51:52

Thank you! "policy vs mechanism" popped into my head when this debate for going, but I didn't write it up well like the above post did.

xster | karma 1718 | avg karma 2.42 · | 2022-04-15 17:37:54

What's the sunken cost of this policy?

rayiner | karma 121493 | avg karma 4.24 · | 2017-06-07 22:59:35+00:00

> Many individual portions of the policy are liked. Those portions have to be paired with less favorable portions in order to create a functional law.

You're basically acknowledging is that a functional policy has to balance benefits against costs. But what you're proposing is inferring support for a policy (i.e. a particular point in the cost-benefit space) from a poll that just asks about the benefits. That's irrational.

reply

ethanbond | karma 13235 | avg karma 3.16 · | 2023-06-29 16:12:06

That’s a good point! I’d be genuinely shocked if the policy didn’t account for a way to solve that.

matteotom | karma 432 | avg karma 3.32 · | 2023-12-19 16:14:57

Are you suggesting a specific policy?

xg15 | karma 16670 | avg karma 3.55 · | 2021-10-30 05:00:56

Because of policies like this? Please explain.

ncmncm | karma 13951 | avg karma 1.02 · | 2022-07-25 12:39:31

Policy is policy.

flappyeagle | karma 2002 | avg karma 3.0 · | 2023-02-22 10:25:07

Yes you're right. So maybe the policy would not be exactly as you outlined.

Ericson2314 | karma 7269 | avg karma 1.6 · | 2021-07-06 18:45:06

Well, we have to do something about that. I don't like designing policy within the constraints of "Actually, we cannot have good policy".

nl | karma 29762 | avg karma 2.49 · | 2022-07-29 11:21:48

Yes that's the common argument, and there's often a good chance it is better. Hard to make a generic policy when details matter a lot

singlow | karma 2264 | avg karma 3.36 · | 2023-05-10 11:29:53

It doesn't have to be a policy. Large beaurocracies naturally tend toward certain behaviors due to natural incentives. You must have policies/regulations to specifically counteract these tendencies.

techiferous | karma 3296 | avg karma 3.03 · | 2010-02-06 15:21:34+00:00

Agreed completely. But I was just trying to wonder why they had the policy in the first place. In large bureaucracies, policies inevitably have weird edge cases.