Chesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking:
A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don't understand how we got "here," we run the risk of making things much worse.
When we seek to intervene in any system created by someone, it's not enough to view their decisions and choices simply as the consequences of first-order thinking because we can inadvertently create serious problems. Before changing anything, we should wonder whether they were using second-order thinking. Their reasons for making certain choices might be more complex than they seem at first. It's best to assume they knew things we don't or had experience we can't fathom, so we don't go for quick fixes and end up making things worse.
Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It's simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming. The fact that it is difficult and unusual is what makes the ability to do it such a powerful advantage.
Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let's consider Chesterton's Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing. It's best known as being one of John F. Kennedy's favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton's Fence states the following:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.
Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don't grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and "had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody." Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don't want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.
[...] Chesterton's Fence is not an admonishment of anyone who tries to make improvements; it is a call to be aware of second-order thinking before intervening. It reminds us that we don't always know better than those who made decisions before us, and we can't see all the nuances to a situation until we're intimate with it. Unless we know why someone made a decision, we can't safely change it or conclude that they were wrong.
The first step before modifying an aspect of a system is to understand it. Observe it in full. Note how it interconnects with other aspects, including ones that might not be linked to you personally. Learn how it works, and then propose your change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 03 2020, @03:24PM (35 children)
Sorry, corporate personhood is accountability.
Precisely the opposite. The corporation and its officers should suffer the full consequences of their actions. Corporate personhood and limited liability let them off the hook.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:54PM (34 children)
So right here, we have corporate personhood entering your viewpoint, by attributing actions to corporations. Your own mind betrays you here.
To answer your question, why do you think it's not already true? If I incorporate before I start ax murdering people, I still will suffer the full consequences of the law when I get caught. If I'm pulling some "Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Priest?" act, I'd be just as responsible for the consequences under any other business structure as I would under corporations. It doesn't protect me.
There's nothing about corporate personhood that allows someone to evade punishment for crime.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @12:29AM (33 children)
Then what is the purpose of granting it personhood? Can it give consent without the officer's say so? What advantage does it grant over the natural person? What is a corporation without people? Are its offspring given childhood? You should give personhood to animals first.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:08AM (32 children)
To constrain government abuse. Hence why I called corporate personhood accountability for government not the corporation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37AM (31 children)
What kind of government abuse? Need examples
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:53AM (30 children)
In recent times, we have Hobby Lobby [wikipedia.org] and Citizens United [wikipedia.org] against abusive government decrees to take away the rights of corporation members to speak and exercise their freedom of religion.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @01:16PM (29 children)
Bigotry is not religious "freedom", it is simple bigotry that should not be tolerated. Fuck Hobby Lobby.
A charter is a license, a privilege, granted by the state, it is not a person.
The state did overstep in some ways, by actually trying to take over the college.
Corporations are not people, and do not deserve equal treatment as natural persons (the individual). There has to be a price for privileges such as limited liability, etc, that real people don't have.
I'm ok with Citizens United. Corporations can spend all they want on a candidate. The guy that takes the money should be the focus. If people don't like bribery, they should quit reelecting people who take bribes. It can hardly be more obvious.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @01:58PM (28 children)
Fortunately, the court case wasn't about enforcing bigotry.
You're not getting it. Even privileges should be granted impartially. The ability of the state to deny privileges should be as controlled as everything else is concerning the state. It's too great a power to let them have. Finally, you apparently haven't noticed, but corporate personhood is not personhood. Corporations aren't legally persons. It's not even an issue. Instead, they are treated similarly to people in order to protect the rights of the people who comprise the corporation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @02:13PM (27 children)
Fortunately, the court case wasn't about enforcing bigotry.
Yes it was, plain and simple. Your denials only reflect your own bigotry.
Instead, they are treated similarly to people in order to protect the rights of the people who comprise the corporation.
Wrong, it's to grant special *get out of jail free* cards for criminal behavior to the privileged few. To treat them similarly is to subject them to the same rules as the rest of us. The charter is a shield from prosecution. Fuck that!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:24PM (26 children)
You have yet to explain the mechanics of how that claim is supposed to work. I'll note instead that there is no such *get out of jail free* card coming from corporate personhood.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @02:37PM (25 children)
Already explained to you in a different post. The heist of 2007-08 is the perfect example of *too rich to punish*. In this year's great bank robbery, nobody (least of all, you) even wants to see the thief when looking right at him. This is ongoing in the entire financial industry. Only the small fish get fried.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:41PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:42PM (23 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:43PM
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37PM (2 children)
Small fish. All whitewashed away. The bosses skated
And how many people got their houses back?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:55PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:12PM
Not at all. That's all in your mind. Your friends walked away with all the goods, and they are doing it again right now.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:40PM (18 children)
Oh, and look at the pitiful conviction rates. Yeah, they really tried hard
Please, stop yer shillin'
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:58PM (17 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:16PM (16 children)
Yeah, it's intentionally sloppy and incompetent prosecution. Crooked as can be, and you support them. What a shame...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:29PM (15 children)
And your evidence for this new claim is?
In any case, it doesn't support your original assertion way, way back when that corporate personhood was a "special *get out of jail free* card". Time to move on.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:35PM (14 children)
No new claims. Your friends skated. Be happy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:50PM (13 children)
Then we went sliding to the non sequitur of mortgage fraud associated with the 2007-2008 real estate crisis. It's a non sequitur because that was one of the many times you failed to show any connection to your claims about corporate personhood. You also made the claim that no one was prosecuted. I provided evidence of 2015 such prosecutions in the US. Then you evolved your claim to two, claiming both that "big fish" weren't convicted and that the prosecutions were "shoddy". Both claims weren't backed by even the slightest effort at providing evidence.
Now, you're saying that the new claims aren't new. Well, here's your ass back. Try to take better care of it next time.
Please research your claims before you make them instead of wasting my time having to make elementary rebuttals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:55PM
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:58PM (10 children)
You provide no support for your claims. They are simple lies that you keep spreading.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @06:10PM (9 children)
Like the 2015 prosecutions and the 650+ and counting convictions? And your numerous posts are ample support for the observation that you have yet to come up with evidence supporting the claim that corporate personhood somehow enables corporate wrongdoing.
Truth is an absolute defense.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @06:37PM (8 children)
Means nothing. Strictly ceremonial, for show only, and like I said, small fish.
Truth is an absolute defense.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be here arguing against it.
And you still have yet to show cause for corporate personhood. You just want to extend special privileges not given to the natural person.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @01:12AM (7 children)
Making excuses.
A history of government misdeeds against corporations doesn't count for some reason? I recall providing that per your request.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @01:35AM (6 children)
A history of government misdeeds against corporations doesn't count for some reason?
Nope. Find another way. A corporation is run by people. Make them pay for the crime and revoke the charter
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:59AM (5 children)
What should the laws be for revoking that charter? The whole point of corporate personhood is to restrain the terrible power of the state. All I hear here is babble about revoking charters, none about the important things. Sure, corporations are run by people and those people will often commit evil acts. That's why we have laws. There's nothing here to address that hasn't already been addressed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @03:24AM (4 children)
There is no need for corporate personhood. It is plain bullshit. A corporation isn't a person any more than a dishwasher is.
And you, are just a shill. Having fun yet?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:05PM (3 children)
Already addressed. Government abuse is why it exists. Why can't you get that?
So what? Corporate personhood != personhood. Nobody is pretending that corporations are people.
Because? You done saying stupid things?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:24PM (2 children)
Already addressed. Government abuse is why it exists.
Wrong. You have addressed nothing. Corporate personhood is abuse by the corporation's people to stay out of jail by evading liability for their criminal acts. Why do you defend and shill for criminals?? Are you one also? Do you want to be one? You vicariously living their lives wishing you were the wolf of Wall Street? Your position is insane.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @03:06PM (1 child)
And yet, you can't show a case where that happens. Seriously, put up or shut up. I've shown multiple cases where the corporate personhood legal fiction was essential to protecting the organization from government abuses.
Because erosion of freedom is like that. They go after the unpopular people first. That includes criminals even when they actually are criminals. It's folly to destroy a democracy just because there are criminals in the world.
Back at you on that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @05:20PM
Your "examples" are lies. You only tell lies
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..