The idea that regulation grows to meet state capacity should be taken a lot more seriously than it is here, and so is the idea that bureaucrats aren't all good faith actors.
That might not be incompatible with what Scott says. If read in a certain way (I'm not sure he's actually trying to say this), one could come to the conclusion that adding more bureaucrats will result in more red tape being unnecessarily made, but that once it's there, cutting bureaucrats won't get rid of it easily. The red tape is now in place and can be abused across bureaucracies. Once the legal bureaucracy is in place to sue over various things, then that can be used easily by remaining bureaucrats to be targeted in suing any other bureaucracies that don't have the resources to preemptively protect themselves.
Maybe on some level, we can think of this like the arguments that gun control won't work in the US, because guns are already too ubiquitous here. Trying to remove them all will just result in the people who don't comply having undue power.
I don't believe in the ratchet for government regulation because there are many examples of periods of deregulation, and we are all contemporaries of Javier Milei.
I understand most people don't actually agree with me that "let people figure things out" leads to no more insane results than statism. But I know it does because I've seen it.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That might not be incompatible with what Scott says. If read in a certain way (I'm not sure he's actually trying to say this), one could come to the conclusion that adding more bureaucrats will result in more red tape being unnecessarily made, but that once it's there, cutting bureaucrats won't get rid of it easily. The red tape is now in place and can be abused across bureaucracies. Once the legal bureaucracy is in place to sue over various things, then that can be used easily by remaining bureaucrats to be targeted in suing any other bureaucracies that don't have the resources to preemptively protect themselves.
Maybe on some level, we can think of this like the arguments that gun control won't work in the US, because guns are already too ubiquitous here. Trying to remove them all will just result in the people who don't comply having undue power.
A Gordian knot with a Mangioni solution!
More options
Context Copy link
I don't believe in the ratchet for government regulation because there are many examples of periods of deregulation, and we are all contemporaries of Javier Milei.
I understand most people don't actually agree with me that "let people figure things out" leads to no more insane results than statism. But I know it does because I've seen it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link