Destruction is a big part of why capitalism works. If a company becomes obsolete or grows too inefficient, it dies, and its dysfunction dies with it. The destruction isn't the goal there - it's the price. The price you pay for maintaining efficiency.

Government agencies rarely face anything like this. TSA exists without facing a risk of being destroyed for being worthless. There is a mechanism missing.

The "step two" is to rebuild it from the grounds up. If there is any need in rebuilding it at all. Never rehire any of the old people. It's how a lot of the post-Soviet countries ended up fixing their dysfunctional government institutions.

They had to thoroughly destroy what was there and build it anew to as much as make them sort of work. There are reasons to believe that the dysfunction would have survived lesser measures - and in some countries that shied away from destruction, it did.

▲

mulmen 3 days ago | parent [-]

Capitalism is an economic system. It’s not a system of government. The government exists to solve the problems the economic system can’t. I think it’s dangerous to apply corporate management practices to the system that literally governs such systems.

How do you know what can be rebuilt better? If you can identify these systems why can’t you modify them? If destruction is constructive don’t you have to concede that whatever you build next also deserves destruction? And if so why build it at all?

If you can’t articulate specific failures and propose solutions now then why would you be able to post-destruction?

What properties make a post-Soviet system worthy of keeping? Why shouldn’t those systems also be constructively destroyed? Why should we apply constructive destruction to non-Soviet systems?

If your entire plan is to break things how do you ever build? What philosophy guides your rebuilding process?

▲

ACCount37 3 days ago | parent [-]

The point is to remove the most egregious of failures, and let literally anything else take their place.

Sometimes things fail so badly that a randomly initialized system outperforms them. Sometimes things fail so badly that no system at all outperforms them. The point is: recognize that and apply destruction.

▲

mulmen 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The point is to remove the most egregious of failures, and let literally anything else take their place.

Define egregious. Why would the next thing be any different than what it replaced?

> Sometimes things fail so badly that a randomly initialized system outperforms them.

Sometimes? When?

> The point is: recognize that and apply destruction.

How do we recognize what needs to be destroyed? What are the criteria?

What you’re describing here seems incredibly careless.

▲

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent [-]

"Incredibly careless" is maintaining the status quo where things like TSA exist.

If you don't find yourself saying "destroying this was a mistake" every once in a while, you aren't destroying nearly enough.

	▲	mulmen 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Destroying the TSA is a specific goal. It’s not random destruction. It’s a specific redundant organization. I still don’t see why we should try to cut into the bone of our society. I see no benefit to careless destruction.
	▲	LtWorf 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is TSA facing cuts?