@Aidan, An interesting perspective that is appealing in a general philosophy way. But as @Adele has stated there are some bigger fish to fry right now. I think the proposals of The Renovator team are a stronger long term viewpoint.
I am perplexed by the thesis of this article as I thought "The Renovator"'s aim was to reinvigorate democracy. Advocating, essentially, for the network state (Libertarian) and deregulation and erosion of the democratic process (Abundance) is antithetical to democracy. What's conspicuously missing from this discussion is who decides on these so called "experiments"? Liberty and Abundance for whom? Is there any public input or debate? Should there be? Or should we just rely on Silicon valley libertarians and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson to conceive and make these decisions for us and we should just have faith in them because of course "if we want innovation then we’ll need to loosen our belts a bit." Apparently the issue is not gaping wealth inequality, naked corruption, big money in politics, decimated unions, a Big Tech industry - nearly entirely unregulated - that has built its wealth from expropriating our private experience and creative work without consent or compensation and has fused with an autocratic regime. Rather, it turns out all we need is to experiment some more in the name of innovation and regulate even less. Innovation may be novelty but it is certainly not progress and by now it is a very worn out excuse and cover for primarily predatory and extractive practices.
Agree with the general premise of the article that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being replaced by regulation, litigation, and pursuit of bureaucracy.
Housing: Do we really think this is a bipartisan issue? For instance, we’ve seen in the 21st century the “great black re-migration” of the black population moving away from northern/western states and big cities owned and operated by one political party. These folks are moving to southern states more dominated by influenced by a different political party that doesn’t serve their interests. Quite the paradox. And the primary reason is housing. A lot of housing growth can be attained by a small and persistent change to one political party.
“We can’t make things anymore” – Do we need a great reset of rules and regulations surrounding infrastructure? We had a highly productive (managerial mindset) in the 20th century of building great things with relative efficiency, but at the cost of lacking concerns for minority populations, labor safety, environmental concerns. The 21st century we have moved the pendulum too far to the other side with everybody’s concerns being heard and made into law (activist mindset) at the expense of managerial expertise and execution.
“but when the sum total effect of regulations layered over decades is that we can barely build anything, and certain special interests have an incentive to maintain their form of scarcity at the expense of everyone else, then we have a problem that both the left and the right acknowledge.” – Like housing, do we really think this is a bipartisan issue? The party that is run by activists, big government types, and pro-democratic initiative and referendum mechanisms, are going to account for more bureaucracies and red tape over time. Do we need a sunset clause on rules and regulations?
@Aidan, An interesting perspective that is appealing in a general philosophy way. But as @Adele has stated there are some bigger fish to fry right now. I think the proposals of The Renovator team are a stronger long term viewpoint.
I am perplexed by the thesis of this article as I thought "The Renovator"'s aim was to reinvigorate democracy. Advocating, essentially, for the network state (Libertarian) and deregulation and erosion of the democratic process (Abundance) is antithetical to democracy. What's conspicuously missing from this discussion is who decides on these so called "experiments"? Liberty and Abundance for whom? Is there any public input or debate? Should there be? Or should we just rely on Silicon valley libertarians and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson to conceive and make these decisions for us and we should just have faith in them because of course "if we want innovation then we’ll need to loosen our belts a bit." Apparently the issue is not gaping wealth inequality, naked corruption, big money in politics, decimated unions, a Big Tech industry - nearly entirely unregulated - that has built its wealth from expropriating our private experience and creative work without consent or compensation and has fused with an autocratic regime. Rather, it turns out all we need is to experiment some more in the name of innovation and regulate even less. Innovation may be novelty but it is certainly not progress and by now it is a very worn out excuse and cover for primarily predatory and extractive practices.
Agree with the general premise of the article that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being replaced by regulation, litigation, and pursuit of bureaucracy.
Housing: Do we really think this is a bipartisan issue? For instance, we’ve seen in the 21st century the “great black re-migration” of the black population moving away from northern/western states and big cities owned and operated by one political party. These folks are moving to southern states more dominated by influenced by a different political party that doesn’t serve their interests. Quite the paradox. And the primary reason is housing. A lot of housing growth can be attained by a small and persistent change to one political party.
“We can’t make things anymore” – Do we need a great reset of rules and regulations surrounding infrastructure? We had a highly productive (managerial mindset) in the 20th century of building great things with relative efficiency, but at the cost of lacking concerns for minority populations, labor safety, environmental concerns. The 21st century we have moved the pendulum too far to the other side with everybody’s concerns being heard and made into law (activist mindset) at the expense of managerial expertise and execution.
“but when the sum total effect of regulations layered over decades is that we can barely build anything, and certain special interests have an incentive to maintain their form of scarcity at the expense of everyone else, then we have a problem that both the left and the right acknowledge.” – Like housing, do we really think this is a bipartisan issue? The party that is run by activists, big government types, and pro-democratic initiative and referendum mechanisms, are going to account for more bureaucracies and red tape over time. Do we need a sunset clause on rules and regulations?