> Some regulations are necessary.
replyGenuine question — is there a common factor across the regulations you'd keep? Because if there is, you could encode that directly instead of maintaining the specific rules. And if there isn't, "some regulations are necessary" isn't really a position yet.
“Tear it down and see what breaks” is one strategy. I would suggest another based on the principle of Chesterton’s fence:
replyhttps://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
The point of the ombudsman I suggested is that it’s hard to encode a simple rule in a sentence or two. You need to be familiar with the process so you’re not relearning the same lessons over and over.
Another bureaucracy to help people navigate the existing bureaucracy? Are you missing a "/s"?
replyNo. The companies that hire lawyers to navigate government bureaucracy have their own internal bureaucracies. So the status quo is not “no bureaucracy”.
replyIt seems that in any sufficiently complex thing there will be some irreducible amount of bureaucracy. So it’s reasonable to make that irreducible set of rules more accessible.
That's the great part of getting rid of government bureaucracy. You save a bit on that and a fortune on all the internal company bureaucracies that can be removed in response.
reply